/  Jh^l 


^Ji 


LIBRARY 


PRIKCETOiV,  ]\.  J. 


!>(lN\TIO\   OF 


S  A  M  U  B  1.    A  O  N  K  W  , 


I.  >■     F  H  I  1.  A  i>  K  1.  P  H  1  \  .    PA. 


L'>lieT 


Nc 


/%^^;m/  ^Air.:.  i-^^r 


Cn 


sc 


D 


ivision 


f^: 


Shel/\  Section. ;^ 4^/ Z, 


Boo7>,  N, 


•"' — -"-  -'^ 


'0-t-P 


;. 


*{  '^^  ) 


.^- 


/ 


h 


/ 


\ 


^ 


METHODISM  AND  THE  CHUECH 


OPPOSED    IN 


FUNDAMENTALS : 


A    LETTER 


TO  THE 


REV.  J.  P.  DURBIN,  D.  D. 


PHESIDEITT      OF      DICKINSOK      COI.LEGK. 


BY    THE    REV.    WM.    HERBERT    NORRIS, 

RECTOR    OF   ST.    JOHN's    CHURCH,   CARLISLE,    PA. 


J.  M.  KNEEDLER  &  Co.,  CARLISLE,  Pa. 
1844. 


•> 


PHILADELPHIA: 
KING  AND    EAIRD,   PRINTERS. 


"The  Scriptures  and.the  Creed  are  not  two  different  Rules  of  Faith,  but 
one  and  the  same  Rule,  dilated  in  Scripture,  contracted  in  the  Creed." 
— Archbishop  Bramhall. 

"  The  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicene,  with  the  additions  of  Constantinople 
and  that  which  is  commonly  called  the  Symbol  of  S.  Athanasius;  and  the 
four  first  General  Councils  are  so  entirely  admitted  by  us,  that  they,  together 
with  the  plain  words  of  Scripture,  are  made  the  Rule  and  Measure  of  judging 
heresies  among  us." — Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor. 

"We  differ,  then,  from  the  Romanist  in  this,  not  in  denying  that  Tradition 
is  valuable,  but  in  maintaining  that  by  itself,  and  without  scripture  warrant, 
it  does  not  convey  to  us  any  article  necessary  to  salvation  ;  in  other  words, 
that  it  is  not  a  rule  distinct  and  co-ordinate,  but  subordinate  and  ministra- 
tive.— Rbv.  J.  H.  Newman. 


*) 


I 


"  What  meanest  thou  by  this  word  Sacrament  1 

Ans.  I  mean  anyutward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace 
given  unto  us;  ordained  by  Christ  Himself  a«  a  means  whereby  we  receive 
the  same,  and  a  pledge  to  assure  us  thereof." 

How  many  parts  are  there  in  a  Sacrament  t 
Ans.  Two,;  the  outward  visible  sign,  and  the  inward  Spiritual  Grace. 

What  is  the  inward  and  Spiritual  grace  t  {"in  Baptism.") 

Ans.  A  death  unto  Sin  and  a  new  birth  vnto  rig-kceotisness ;  for  being  by  na- 
ture born  in  Sin,  and  the  children  of  wrath,  we  are  hereby  made  the  chil- 
dren of  grace. 


"OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER." 

What  is  the  inward  part  or  thing  signified  t 

Ans.  The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  which  are  spiritually  taken  and  received 
by  the  faithful  in  the  Lord's  Supper. — Church  Catechism. 

"He  hath  given  His  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  not  on?y  to  die  for  us, 
but  also  to  be  our  spiritual  food  and  sustenance  in  that  Holy  Sacrament." — 

ITUROY. 


Reverend  Sir; 

Inasmuch  as  you  have  hazarded  a  public  discourse 
on  matters  that  intimately  concern  the  Church  which 
I  serve,  you  can  not  be  surprised,  if  some  of  your 
reported  statements  should  meet  with  severe  criticism, 
and  others  with  a  pointed  denial. 

I,  of  course,  was  not  present  when  you  delivered 
the  aforesaid  discourse,  and  therefore  it  would  be 
unfair  for  me  to  hold  you  responsible  for  the  use  of 
any  particular  words  ;  but  since  you  have  given 
currency  to  several  very  erroneous  opinions,  for 
which  you  are  referred  to  as  authority,  it  becomes 
my  painful  duty  to  correct  those  opinions  by  publicly 
addressing  you. 

Your  discourse  seems  to  have  been  on  what  you 
and  the  "  religious  public"  are  pleased  to  style 
"Puseyism."  The  points  you  raised  for  discussion 
were  "the  Rule  of  Faith,"  "Justification,"  and  "the 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist."  Every  body  concurs  in 
the  belief,  that  you  maintained  that  the  teaching  of 
many  distinguished  divines  of  the  Church  of  England 
on  these  several  points  was  in  the  main  conformable 
to  that  which  obtains  in  the  Roman  Church  ;  and  as 
such,  opposed  to  the  theological  system  authoritatively 
exhibited  in  the  standards  of  the  Anglican  Commun- 
ion in  England  and  America ;  and  again  that  you 

1* 


took  occasion  to  avow  the  identity  of  the  Methodist 
view  on  those  important  points,  with  that  of  the 
AngUcan  system. 

For  the  present  I  shall  overlook  the  very  common 
mistake,  which  ascribes  to  certain  theologians  of  the 
University  of  Oxford  a  peculiar  property  in,  and 
responsibility  for,  principles  whose  maintenance  has 
earned  for  them  a  name  '  which  the  world  will  not 
willingly  let  die  ;'  neither  do  I  conceive  it  worth  my 
while  to  reply  to  the  stale  charge,  that  those  princi- 
ples are  Roman  rather  than  Anglican  ;  nor  to  show 
under  what  qualifications  they  may  be  truly  said  to 
be  common  to  both  communions.  If  they  are  An- 
glican, it  is  quite  gratuitous  to  inquire  whether  they 
are  Roman  or  not.  Herein  does  not  exist  the  grievous 
accusation  which  I  am  about  to  repel.  My  ears 
have  grown  used  to  the  clamor  about  "  Puseyism'^ 
and  "  Popery ;"  and  as  the  inhabitants  of  Niagara 
can  sleep  all  undisturbed  by  the  ceaseless  and  deaf- 
ening roar  of  the  cataract,  so  has  it  come  to  pass,  that 
the  noise  which  now  fills  the  world  about  "Popery" 
in  the  Church  of  England,  does  not  particularly  arrest 
the  attention  of  those  who  know  how  much  it  amounts 
to.  But  that  Methodism  should  be  identified  with 
the  Anglican  theology  on  the  several  points,  '  the 
Rule  of  Faith,'  '  the  means  of  Justification,'  and  '  the 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,'  is  to  me,  certainly,  a  new 
thing.  I  have  felt  myself.  Rev.  Sir,  obliged  to  deny 
that  there  is  any  truth  in  this  opinion;  and  you  will 
bear  with  me  while  I  state  the  grounds  of  my  denial. 

These  shall  be,  generally,  the  alterations  which 
Methodists  have  felt  themselves  obliged  to  make  in 


our  standards  in  order  to  render  them  capable  of  use, 
and  consistent  with  their  principles. 

I.  You  read  our  VI.  Article  so  as  to  make  it  exclude 
the  authority  and  tradition  of  the  Church  Catholic 
from  having  any  interference  in  the  Church's  Rule' 
of  Faith  for  individuals.  In  the  first  place,  I  deny 
that  the  article  makes  any  such  exclusion ;  for  itself 
appeals  to  tradition,  to  support  its  own  decision  as  to 
the  character  of  the  Apocryphal,  or,  as  some  Roman 
theologians  call  them,  the  deutero-canonical  Books. 
These  the  Church  appoints  to  be  "read  for  example 
of  life  and  instruction  in  manners,  but  doth  not  apply 
them  to  establish  any  doctrine  ;"  thus  making  them 
a  rule  of  moral  practice,  but  not  a  rule  of  faith.  This 
portion  of  our  article,  however,  you  have  consistently 
expunged.  Secondly,  the  XX.  Article  declare vthat 
"  the  Church  hath  authority  in  controversies  of 
faith,''  and  presupposes  her  paramount  right  to 
"  expound'^  Scripture,  of  which  she  is  the  "  witness 
and  keeper,"  by  saying  that  she  "ought  not  to  decree 
any  thing  against  the  same,  nor  besides  the  same,  to 
enforce  any  thing  to  be  believed  for  necessity  of 
salvation."  The  whole  of  this  Article  also,  the 
Methodists,  from  the  necessities  of  their  condition, 
have  rejected.  '  But  again,  to  show  that  no  such 
straitened  sense  can  be  put  upon  our  VI.  Article  as 
would  express  your  view  of  the  Rule  of  Faith,  I 
refer  you  to  a  canon  of  the  Synod  which  in  1571, 
imposed  subscription  to  the  XXXIX.  Articles.  It  is 
an  authoritative  decree  of  the  Church,  quite  as  much 
so  as  the  VI.  Article  itself.  Its  drift  is  the  same  ;  it 
uses  similar  language;  it  is  an  executive  sentence 


carrying  out  the  injunction  of  the  Articles ;  it  is  a 
rule  by  which  the  Clergy  are  to  be  guided  in  teaching 
and  in  exacting  submission  to  the  faith.  I  commend 
it  to  your  candid  consideration:  "The  preachers 
shall  in  the  first  place  be  careful  never  to  preach  any 
thing  to  be  religiously  held  and  believed  by  the 
people,  but  what  is  agreeable  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  and  collected  from  that 
very  doctrine  by  the  Catholic  Fathers  and  Jincient 
Bishops."  Be  pleased,  Rev.  Sir,  to  pause  over  these 
words,  for  a  moment.  Observe  that  they  are  not  the 
words  of  any  particular  man  or  party  of  men. 
They  are  a  decree  of  the  Church  ;  they  show  in  the 
Church's  own  words  what  is  the  Church's  Rule  of 
Faith.  They  prove  beyond  possibility  of  cavil^  that 
the  tjile  of  Scriptural  interpretation  by  which  the 
Clergy  are  to  be  guided  is  not  their  own  private 
judgment ;  because,  even  though  they  should  think 
any  doctrine  to  be  Scriptural,  still  they  are  charged 
to  be  careful  not  to  preach  it  except  it  be  also  collected 
out  of  the  Scripture  "by  the  Catholic  Fathers  and  An- 
cient Bishops."  So  that  by  the  decision  of  the  Church, 
Scripture  interpreted  by  the  Church  and  not  by  par- 
ticular individuals,  is  her  Rule  of  Faith.  The  instru- 
ment of  interpretation  is  the  Catholic  Faith,  or  that 
integral  body  of  dogmatic  teaching  which  has  been 
believed  in  the  Church  "  always,  every  where,  and 
by  all;"  the  witnesses  to  the  existence  of  such  a 
faith,  as  having  been  handed  down  from  age  to  age, 
are  the  great  Doctors  and  Bishops  of  each  particular 
age,  whom  the  Church  recognised  as  her  teachers  ; 
the  law   interpreted,  is  the  written  word  of  God; 


9 

the  office  of  private  judgment  is  to  recognise  this 
divine  teaching,  to  distinguish  it  from  all  peculiar 
opinions,  individual  interpretations  of  Scripture,  and 
sectarian  doctrines,  and  to  submit  to  it,  because  in 
every  age  it  has  been  declared  to  be  the  word  of  God, 
by  "the  Church  of  the  Living  God,  which  is  the  pillar 
and  gronnd  of  the  Truth."  Hence  opinions  and 
private  interpretations  of  Scripture  which  may  have 
been  current  in  some  portion  or  portions  of  the 
Church  and  not  in  others,  or  in  some  age  or  ages  and 
not  in  all  from  the  beginning,  are  by  the  Anglican 
Rule,  necessarily  excluded  from  the  Catholic  Faith, 
even  though  they  may  have  been  here  and  there 
imposed,  or  held  as  of  faith,  e.  g.  such  doctrines  as 
the  Pope's  Sovereignty,  transubstantiation,  the  wor- 
ship of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  and  purgatorial  satisfac- 
tion to  God's  justice,  with  the  concomitant  abuse  of 
purgatorial  pardons,  or,  as  they  are  now  called,  "in- 
dulgences."* In  like  manner  and  a  /ortiori  that 
rule  excludes  from  the  teaching  of  our  Church  all 
doctrines  whatsoever  that  had  their  origin  in  the 
ecclesiastical  convulsions  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
and  all  developements  of  those  doctrines. 

You  must  therefore  perceive.  Rev.  Sir,  that  obedi- 
ence on  the  part  of  Anglican  divines,  to  the  canon  of 
their  Church,  is  not  to  act  inconsistently  with  the  VI. 
Article.  A  recognition  of  the  "authority  of  the  Church 
ill  controversies  of  faith,"  submission  to  what  she 
"enforces  to  be  believed"  as  scriptural  truth,  (Art. 
XX.)  preaching  only  what  the  Catholic  Fathers  and 
Ancient  Bishops  have  collected  out  of  Scripture,  does 

*   See  Note  A.  at  the  end. 


I 


10 

not  deny,  but  rather  maintains,  that  "  Holy  Scripture 
containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation,  so  that 
whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved 
thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man  that  it 
should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  faith,  or  be 
thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation.'^  No 
Anglican  divines  of  any  note  (none  whatever  that  I 
have  heard  of)  have  written  a  word  in  disparagement 
of  this  principle  of  the  Church.  The  doctrinal  and  ' 
practical  teaching  of  them  all  is  in  strictest  accordance 
with  it ;  and  as  to  those  called  '  Oxford  Divines,'  no 
writers  of  the  day  are  more  remarkable  for  confidence 
in  appealing  to  Holy  Writ  for  authority,  ample 
authority,  on  every  point  which  they  propose  as  of 
faith.  Mr.  Newman  has  published  six  volumes  of 
sermons  on  almost  all  subjects  ;  and  if  they  may  be 
said  to  be  distinguished  for  any  one  thing  more  than  - 
another,  it  is  for  the  profusion  of  Scripture  texts 
which  he  interweaves  in  them,  and  by  them  proving 
and  illustrating  every  important  statement  that  he 
makes.  It  may  be  safely  said  that  the  English 
language  contains  no  sermons  that  approach  his  in 
that  paramount  quality.  Your  citations,  therefore, 
from  the  writings  of  those  divines  on  the  Rule  of 
Faith,  by  no  means  serve  your  purpose.  Their 
words  are  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  principles 
of  their  own  Church,  and  not  by  the  principles  of 
Methodism.  They  uphold  the  tradition  of  the  Church, 
just  as  our  great  divines  have  always  done,  not  as  if 
the  Scriptures  did  not  contain  the  whole  Christian 
faith,  but,  as  being  the  true  antagonist  to  self-will, 
capricious  belief,   and    heretical    interpretations   of 


11 

Scripture.  A  church  claiming  "authority  in  contro- 
versies of  faith"  must  of  necessity  have  an  authori- 
tative traditional  faith.  Were  it  otherwise,  the 
Church  of  England  would  stultify  herself  in  putting 
forth  any  such  claim  as  that  in  her  XX.  Article. 
Methodism  has  rejected  that  article,  and  therefore  is 
wise  in  making  no  appeals  to  tradition  ;  but  let  it  not 
be  supposed  that  what  would  be  inconsistent  and 
absurd  in  Methodism  is  inconsistent  in  the  Church  of 
England,  or  in  an  Anglican  divine.  On  the  contrary 
what  the  former  cannot  do,  the  latter  must  do.  Our 
VI.  Article  therefore.  Rev.  Sir,  in  the  Anglican  system 
means  one  thing ;  that  portion  of  it  which  you  have 
appropriated,  means  with  you  quite  another.  If  you 
are  satisfied  with  your  own,  be  it  so ;  but  I  beg  you 
will  not  again  think  of  ascribing  your  principles  to 
our  Church.  It  cannot  be  done  truthfully ;  it  cannot 
be  done  without  imposing  on  the  ignorance  and  cre- 
dulity of  those  who  are  unable  to  examine  the  subject 
for  themselves. 

II.  I  proceed  now  to  notice  your  assumed  alliance 
of  Methodism  with  the  Anglican  system,  in  their  re- 
spective views  on  'the  means  of  Justification'  and  on 
'the  Sacraments,'  particularly  'the  Eucharist.'  These 
were  I  believe  distinct  topics  in  your  discourse,  but 
I  must  consider  them  together.  You  were  able  to  dis- 
tinguish them ;  I,  in  the  present  instance,  cannot.  I 
am  to  show  that  there  is  no  such  similarity  in  our  doc- 
trine on  the  above  mentioned  points  as  you  have  pleas- 
ed yourself  withal;  but  rather  a  complete  antagonism. 
The  basis  of  my  argument  will  be  the  same  as  hereto- 
fore, viz.  the  avowed  departure  of  Methodism  from 


12 

the  faith  of  our  church  as  witnessed  by  the  altera- 
tions which  they  have  made  in  our  formularies. 

In  the  first  place  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  you  have  taken  our  XVI.  Article,  "Of  sin  after 
Baptism,"  and  after  making  one  or  two  significant 
alterations,  have  entitled  it  "  Of  Sin  after  Justifica- 
tion ;"  thus  bearing  witness  that  the  XXXIX.  Arti- 
cles do  make  Baptism  a  means  of  Justification,  and 
that  Methodism  does  not ;  proving  that  Justification 
in  the  theology  of  the  Articles  means  one  thing,  and 
with  the  Methodists  quite  another.  The  great  prin- 
ciple on  which  our  XVI.  Article  is  based,  is  that  of 
Spiritual  Regeneration  in  Baptism.  It  asserts  that 
fundamental  article*  of  the  Catholic  Faith  in  the 
plainest  language,  e.  g.  ^^  after  we  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  we  may  depart  from  grace  given  and 
fallinto^sin.''''  But  Methodism  rejects  the  doctrine 
of  Regeneration  in  Baptism,  and  hence  cannot  ap- 
propriate to  itself  our  XVI.  Article  without  altering  it 
so  as  to  make  it  conformable  to  their  doctrine  of 
Justification  ;  which  it  is  maintained  is  immediate  on 
simple  faith,  i.  e.  without  any  intervention  of  sacra- 
ments as  means  of  conferring  that  grace. 

Theologians,  Rev.  Sir,  will  see  at  once,  that  here  a 
great  ^r^■?^c^;;/f  divides  us  ;  a  principle  which  is  cardi- 
nal, and  which  in  fact  contains  the  gist  of  the  whole 
controversy.  Adopt  the  doctrine  of  Regeneration  in 
Baptism,  and  in  the  minds  of  consistent  persons,  the 
whole  Catholic  System  which  ignorance  miscalls 
"  Puseyism,"  follows  as  a  matter  of  course ;  and  as 

•  "  I   acknowledege  One  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins" 
Nicene  Creed. 


I 


» 


13 

necessarily  will  the  Lutheran  dogma  of  Justification 
and  the  systems  which  are  built  thereon,  be  rejected 
as  involving  heresy.  Consistency  between  any  other 
real  or  imaginable  contradictions  might  be  supposed 
just  as  easily  as  between  the  system  of  the  Church, 
and  that  of  Methodism,  or  any  other  phase  of  Luther- 
anism.  This,  Rev.  Sir,  you  will  not  only  admit,  but 
rather  maintain.  A  system  which  upholds  sacra- 
mental media  of  Justification,  and  one  that  denies  all 
such  media  are  of  course  heterogeneous  to  each  other. 
That  which  you  adopt  is  of  the  latter  character,  that 
of  the  Anglican  Church,  or  rather  of  the  church 
catholic  in  all  ages,  is  the  former.  Now  if  this 
fundamental  diflerence  between  us  is  not  sufficiently 
obvious  to  you  from  the  consistent  and  necessary 
treatment  which  our  XVI.  Article  received  from  the 
founders  of  your  society,  I  can  show  the  same  as 
fully  from  other  parts  of  our  formularies. 

I  call  your  attention  then  in  the  second  place  to  the 
meaning  of  our  XI.  Articles  "  Of  the  Justification  of 
man."  This  Article  confesses  itself  to  be  an  in- 
complete statement  of  the  whole  doctrine.  It  raises 
but  one  point,  viz.  the  ground  or  procuring  cause 
(propter  quod  J  of  man's  justification,  i.  e.  the  merits 
of  Christ  in  contrast  with  our  own  works  or  deserving; 
and  then  concisely  states  faith  to  be  the  sole  grace, 
the  sole  means  which  qualifies  us  for  a  participation 
of  the  merits  of  our  Lord.  And  then,  after  declaring 
this  Justification  by  faith  only  to  be  "most  wholesome 
and  comfortable,"  it  refers  us  to  the  Homily  where 
the  doctrine  is  "  more  largely  expressed."  That 
Homily  professes  to  deliver  the  doctrine  as  it  was 

2 


I 


14 

always  received  by  the  Fatliers  and  Doctors  of  the 
Church  CathoUc.  Its  words  are,  "and  after  this 
manner,  to  be  justified  only  by  this  true~and  Hvely 
faitli  speak  all  the  old  and  ancient  authors  both 
Greeks  and  Latins."  Then  it  quotes  directly  from 
St.  Hilary,  St.  Basil,  and  St.  Ambrose,  and  refers  for 
like  testimony  to  Origen,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Cyp- 
rian, St.  Augustine,  Prosper,  fficumenius,  Phocius, 
Bernardus  and  Anselm,  thus  appealing  to  the  teach- 
ing of  the  great  i  Doctors  of  the  Church  down  to  the 
eleventh  century.  After  this  the  Homily  proceeds 
immediately  :  "  Nevertheless  this  sentence,  that  we 
be  justified  by  faith  only  is  not  meant  of  them  (i.  e. 
the  Fathers,)  that  the  said  justifying  faith  is  alone  in 
man  without  true  repentance,  hope,  charity,  dread 
and  the  fear  of  God  at  any  time  or  season."  "But 
this  saying  that  we  be  justified  by  faith  only,  freely 
and  without  works,  is  spoken  for  to  take  away  clear- 
ly all  merit  of  our  works  as  being  unable  to  deserve 
our  justification  .  .  .  and  therefore  wholly  to  ascribe 
the  merit  and  deserving  of  our  justification  unto 
Christ  only,  and  His  most  precious  blood  shedding." 
Thus  have  we,  Rev.  Sir,  our  church's  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words  "faith  only"  as  they  are  used  in 
her  XI.  Article.  That  Article  refers  us  to  the  Homily 
for  its  full  exposition.  The  Homily  gives  it,  and  in 
turn  appeals  to  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Fathers, 
tells  us  in  what  sense  they  used  those  words,  and 
claims  their  meaning  as  its  own,  viz.  that  "  faith  only" 
is  simply  an  exclusion  of  personal  merit  in  the  sinner 
from  being  the  procuring  cause  of  his  justification, 
and  an  ascription  of  all  desert  to  our  Lord  and  His 


15 

Cross.  What  authority  therefore  has  any  one  for 
saying  that  our  XL  Article  excludes  the  Sacraments 
from  being  God's  means  and  instruments  for  convey- 
ing justifying  grace  to  the  penitent  believer  ?  Was  not 
the  sacramental  system  maintained  in  its  fullest  vigor 
by  all  those  Catholic  Fathers  to  whom  the  Homily 
appeals  (from  Origen  to  SS.  Anselm  and  Bernard) 
as  teaching  "justification  by  faith  only  ?"  This  of 
course  is  undeniable  ;  and  therefore  quite  consistently 
does  the  same  Homily  recognise  the  Sacraments  as 
instrumental  means  (see  also  Art.  XXVH.)  of  Justi- 
fication. It  says  "  Infants  being  baptized  are  by 
this  sacrifice  (i.  e.  of  the  Cross)  washed  from  their 
sins  ;"  and  again  "  Our  office  is  not  to  pass  the  time 
of  this  present  life  unfruitfully  and  idly,  after  that  we 
are  baptized  or  justified,  much  less  after  that  we  be 
made    Christ^s  members^   to  live  contrary  to  the  i 

same  ;  making  ourselves  members  of  the  devil." 

Thus,  Rev.  Sir,  do  our  XXXIX.  Articles  make  a 
wide  difference  between  us.  In  your  article  on 
Justification  you  interpret  "faith  only"  so  as  to 
exclude  not  merely  our  own  merits  but  also  all  sacra- 
mental media  whereby  justification  may  be  given  to 
faith.  This  is  all  right  and  consistent  with  your  own 
principles ;  but  remember  that  your  principles  are 
not,  never  have  been,  never  can  be,  those  of  the 
Church.  Our  Article  (you  will  pardon  my  repeating  _ 
it)  refers  us  to  a  document  of  the  church,  from  which 

•  That  you  may  know  how  wa  are  made  members  of  Christ,  I 
refer  you  to  the  words  of  the  Church  Catechism  :  "  In  Baptism,  where' 
in  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven." 


I' 


in 


» 


16 

we  learn  that  "faith  only"  is  therein  to  be  under- 
stood as  it  always  has  been  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
so  as  simply  to  exclude  personal  desert  in  the  sinner. 
Your  article,  as  it  is  rightly  understood  by  you, 
teaches  that  justification  is  immediate;  ours  (as  in- 
cluding the  teaching  of  the  Homily  which  it  adopts) 
looks  to  Holy  Baptism  as  the  initial  means  of  justi- 
fication ;  nay  further,  the  Homily  considers  the  two 
terms  as  interchangeable  equivalents  for  the  begin- 
ning of  the  new  state  of  man.* 

The  broad  line  of  division  betwixt  us  thus  disco- 
vered in  the  XXXIX.  Articles  runs  also  llu'ough  our 
respective  sacramental  offices.  The  alterations  which 
Methodists  have  made  in  our  office  for  Baptism  in 
order  to  render  it  available  to  their  use,  most  clearly 
evinces  this ;  and  that  though  they  have  retained 
some  of  our  introductory  prayers,  which  however,  in 
their  system,  are  quite  unintelligible.  For  instance 
you  must  assume  that  an  adult  who  presents  himself 
to  you  for  Baptism,  being  truly  penitent,  having 
what  you  consider  to  be  a  living  faith,  and  having 
also  answered  satisfactorily  to  the  prescribed  question 
"  have  you  experienced  the  pardon  of  sin,"  must  be 
born  again,  must  be  regenerated,  (in  your  meaning  of' 
the  word,)  must  have  received  forgiveness  of  sins. — 
And  yet  you  pray  for  such  a  person  in  our  words 
"that  he  coming  to  Holy  Baptism  may  receive  remis- 
sion of  his  sins  by  spiritual  regeneration,"  "give  Thy 
Holy  Spirit  to  this  person  that  he  m,ay  be  born 
again."    This  language  I  say  is  to  me  quite  unintelli- 

*    Ut  Supra,  "  Our  office  is  not  to  live  unfruitfuUy  after  tliat  we  are 
baptized  or  justified." 


gible  as  used  by  you,  whereas  in  our  office  it  is  alto- 
gether plain.  You  by  discarding  sacramental  media 
of  Justification  do  and  must  maintain  that  true  repen- 
tance and  faith  are  at  once  and  immediately  reward- 
ed by  justification  and  regeneration  (in  your  sense  of 
the  word),  and  that  when  they  exist  they  are  ipso 
facto  proof  that  those  graces  have  been  received. — 
On  the  other  hand,  with  us  repentance  and  faith  are 
no  proof  at  all,  no  pledge  whatever,  that  a  person  is 
regenerate  and  justified;  but,  as  our  Catechism  teaches 
us,  they  are  simply  prerequisites,  qualifying  a  person 
for  the  recejjtion  of  the  grace  of  Baptism,  which  ac- 
cording to  the  same  Catechism  is  "  a  death  unto  sin 
and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness.'^* 

Hence  it  is  that  we  do  in  all  consistency,  pray 
that  the  candidate  coming  to  Holy  Baptism  "  may 
receive  remission  of  sins,"  may  be  born  again.  But 
though  I  cannot  understand  the  meaning  you  put 
upon  these  prayers,  I  can  readily  apprehend  it  to  be 
different  from  that  which  our  office  declares ;  because 
the  alterations  you  have  made  in  the  latter,  intimates 
something  of  the  sort.  For  instance,  I  find  not  in 
your  office  the  words,  "  sanctify  this  water  to  the 
mystical  washing  away  of  sin,^' — they  occur  twice 
in  ours,  and  declare  one  of  the  virtues  of  Baptism. 
You  were  quite  consistent  in  expunging  them.  Again 

*  I  may  here  remark  once  for  all,  that  the  meaning  which  the  term 
"  regeneration"  bears  in  the  Church  is  altogether  different  from  that 
which  obtains  out  of  the  Church.  We  do  not  mean  that  regeneration 
is  a  change  of  the  will,  but  the  making  a  child  of  Adam's  sinful 
nature  a  "  member  of  Christ's  Body"  The  doctrines  are  as  essentially 
distinct  as  if  they  had  different  names. 

2* 


i 


18 

you  have  stricken  out  the  exhortations  and  prayers, 
after  the  administration  of  the  Sacrament,  the  very 
portion  which,  in  our  office,  fixes  the  meaning  of  all 
that  precedes:  e.g.  "Seeing  ?zoz^,  dearly  beloved,  that 
this  child  is  regenerate" — "we  yield  Thee  hearty 
thanks  . . .  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this 
child  with  thy  Holy  Spirit.  And  humbly  we  beseech 
Thee  to  grant  that  he  being  dead  unto  sin  and  living 
unto  righteousness,  and  being  buried  with  Christ  in 
his  death,  may  crucify  the  old  man,  &c.,  and  that  as 
he  is  made  partaker  of  the  death  of  thy  son,  he 
may  also  be  partaker  of  his  resurrection,  "&c.  The 
exhortation  which  follows,  also  most  clearly  shows 
that  Baptism  is  the  beginning  of  the  new  life,  and 
how  and  why  that  life  must  be  pursued. 

I  cannot  be  so  unjust  to  the  founders  of  your 
society,  as  to  suppose  that  they  made  these  changes 
without  reason.  I  believe  that,  however  mistaken, 
they  acted  conscientiously  ;  and  there  is  the  strongest 
evidence  in  what  they  did,  that  they  proceeded  with 
deliberation,  and  under  a  marked  anxiety  to  depart 
from  the  Church  of  England's  doctrine  no  farther 
than  they  could  avoid.  They  did  not,  however, 
believe  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptismal  office ;  it  was 
unmanageable  by  them,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
first  principle  of  their  religious  system ;  and  there- 
fore they  altered  the  service  as  they  did  the  articles. 
But  the  dividing  line  does  not  stop  here;  it  goes  on 
into  the  Communion  offices,  and  on  your  side  rejects 
those  two  characteristics  of  that  Great  Mystery,which 
the  Church  has  ever  maintained;  viz:  that  it  is  an 


1 
I 


19 

oblation  to  God  the  Father,  and  a  real  and  spiritual* 
communication  of  Clirist's  body  and  blood  to  worthy 
receivers. 

The  first  is  recognized  in  the  prayer  for  the  Church 
militant,  previous  to  which,  the  Priest  is  directed  to 
place  the  alms  and  elements  on  the  altar  ;  immedi- 
ately after  which,  God  is  besought  to  accept  the  alms 
and  the  oblations  and  prayers.  Here  our  Liturgy 
and  the  English  are  the  same — afterwards  in  ours 
the  oblation  of  the  Elements  is  repeated,  in  the 
prayer  of  Consecration.  This  oblation,  which 
gives  the  Eucharist  its  sacrificial  character,  is  a  uni- 
versal rite  in  the  Catholic  church ;  but  you  have 
nothing  of  the  sort.  Again  the  English  agrees  with 
the  Roman  rite,  and  ours  with  the  Greek,  with 
respect  to  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the 
Elements,  so  that  receivers  may  be  partakers  of 
Christ's  Body  and  Blood  ;  the  former  are  without 
that  Invocation,  the  latter  have  it. 

And  now  in  respect  of  what  theologians  call  the 
real  presence  of  Christ's  body;  you  do  not  lay  claim  to 
any  such  dogma, and  an  alteration  in  one  prayer  which 
you  have  adopted,  shows  that  all  the  sacred  language 
which  you  have  borrowed  from  us,  is,  like  that  in 
your  Baptismal  office,  to  be  interpreted  differently 
from  the  same  words,  as  they  occur  in  our  Ritual. 
In  the  prayer  which  the  Priest  says  in  behalf  of  him- 

•  Another  significant  alteration:  the  Methodists  have  stricken  out  the 
words  "spiritual  manner"  from  our  XXVIII.  Article,  and  inserted 
instead  "scriptural  manner;"  which  may  mean  nothing  or  anything, 
just  as  the  people  please.  It  may  mean,  and  in  the  opinion  of  many 
millions  of  Christians  does  mean,  iransubsianltation. 


20 

self  and  the  people,  there  are  these  words :  "  grant 
us  therefore  gracious  Lord,  so  to  eat  the  flesh  of  thy 
dear  son  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  drink  his  blood,  that  our 
sinful  bodies  may  be  made  clean  by  His  Body,''^  Sic; 
these  last  words  you  have  struck  out,  and  inserted 
<■'■  His  Death.^'  This  one  act  alone  would  show  the 
essential  ditference  between  us,  as  sacrificing  and 
rejecting  the  great  principle  of  the  Catholic  faith,  on 
which  hangs  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments,  Regen- 
eration, Justification,  Sanctification,  and  the  Resur- 
rection unto  Life  at  the  Last  Day — viz :  the  office  of 
our  Lord's  glorified  humanity  in  the  salvation  of  men. 
Your  founders  did  not  believe  that  our  fallen  nature 
is  cleansed  by  the  glorified  and  divine  human  nature 
of  Christ,  that  "  our  sinful  bodies  are  made'clean  by 
His  Body,'''  that  the  latter  gives  us  life,  even  as 
Adam's  gave  us  death.  On  this  principle.  Rev.  Sir, 
is  built  the  sublime  Theology  of  the  Catholic  church, 
this  is  the  great  exponent  of  her  teaching,  as  it  has 
come  down  to  us  from  Apostolic  days,  and  been 
proclaimed  with  one  mouth  in  every  section  of  the 
Apostolic  family  in  every  age.  There  is  no  more 
discordance  in  the  tradition  of  the  Church  Catholic, 

:  in  respect  of  this  principle,  than  of  God's  existence. 

r  The    Canon   of  Scripture   itself  has   not   the   same 

j,;'j  unanimous  testimony  to  its  authenticity,  that  this  one 

'great  all  embracing  doctrine  has,  which  in  Scripture, 
shines  like  the  sun,  throwing  its  rich  light  into  every 
other  doctrine,  and  explaining  the  whole.  The  Catho- 
lic faith  is  built  upon  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God,  under  the  ministration  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Th  'second  Adam'   gives  life   to   the   fallen   seed 


H 


'I 


81 

of  the  first  Adam,  by  making  them  "members  of  His 
body,  of  his  flesh  and  of  His  bones."  He  con- 
tinues that  hfe  in  them,  by  Himself  becoming  their 
heavenly  food  in  the  Holy  Communion  of  his  Body 
and  Blood — really,  because  a  gift  that  is  not  real  is 
nothing  at  all,  and  spiritually,  because  Himself, "the 
second  Adam,  is  a  life-making  Spirit;"  and  thus  they 
become'"  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature,"  as  truly, 
and  even  as  they  are  by  truth,  partakers  of  the  fallen 
earthly  nature  of  the  first  Adam.  "  For  as  in  Adam 
all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive." 
"  The  first  man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy ;  the  second 
man  is  the  Lord  from  Heaven."  "The  first  man  was 
made  (an  enlivened  i.  e.  only)  a  living  Soul,  the 
second  man  a  life-making  (^wortoww)  Spirit." 

It  is  beside  my  purpose,  Rev.  Sir,  to  show  how  the 
ancient  Doctors  of  the  church  handled  this  great 
principle,  though  I  have  the  means  at  hand  of  doing 
so,  to  some  extent ;  my  present  concern  is  with  the 
Church  of  England,  and  I  now  proceed  to  exhibit, 
from  the  two  greatest  of  her  modern  divines,  our 
recognised  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Commu- 
nion office,  which  you  discarded,  when  to  a  living 
"life-giving"  "Body"  you  preferred  "Death." 

First  I  quote  from  Hooker.  Eccl.  Pol.  13.  v.  c. 
56.  Ed.  Keble. 

"  We  are  by  nature  the  sons  of  Adam.  When 
God  created  Adam  he  created  us;  and  as  many  as 
have  descended  from  Adam,  have  in  themselves  the 

•  If  we  have  beeji  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son, 
much  more,  being  reconciled,  shall  we  be  saved  by  His  Life."  "He 
rose  again  for  our  Justification." 


I 


I 

I, 
1 

1(1  - 


I . 


I 
m 


i,; 


22 

root  out  of  which  they  sprung The  sons  of  God 

have  God's  own  natural  son,  as  a  second  Adam  from 
Heaven ;  whose  race  and  progeny  they  are  by  a 
sphitual  and  heavenly  Birth.  (§6)  For  in  Him  we 
actually  are  by  our  actual  incorporation  into  that 
society,  which  hath  Him  for  their  head,  and  doth 
make,  together  with  Him,  one  Body,  (He  and  they 
in  that  respect  having  one  name,)  for  which  cause,  by 
virtue  of  this  mystical  conjunction,  we  are  of  Him 
and  in  Him,  even  as  though  our  very  flesh  and  bones 
were  continuate  with  His.  We  are  therefore  adopted 
sons  of  God  to  eternal  life,  by  participation  of  the 
only  begotten  Son  of  God,  whose  life  is  the  well- 
spring  and  cause  of  ours.  The  church  is  in  Christ,  / 
as  Eve  was  in  Adam.  Yea,  bi/  grace,  we  are  every 
of  us  in  Christ  and  in  His  church,  as  by  nature  we 
are  in  those  our  first  parents.  God  made  Eve  of  the 
rib  of  Adam.  And  His  church  He  frameth  out  of 
the  very  flesh,  the  very  wounded  and  bleeding  side 
of  the  Son  of  Man.  His  body  crucified,  and  His 
blood  shed  for  the  life  of  the  world,  are  the  true 
elements  of  that  heavenly  being,  (i.  e.  the  Church) 
which  maketh  us  such  as  Himself  is,  of  whom  we 
come.  For  which  cause  the  words  of  Adam  may  be 
fitly  the  words  of  Christ,  concerning  His  church, 
"flesh  of  my  flesh  and  bone  of  my  bones,"  a  true 

nature  extract  out  of  my  own  body* Adam  is  in 

us  as  an  original  cause  of  our  nature,  and  of  that 
corruption  of  nature  which  causeth  death,  Christ  as 


*  Comp.    St.  Paul.  Eph.  v.  30.    32.  "  We   are    members   of  His 
body,  of  His  flesii,  and  of  His  bones.". . ."  This  is  a  great  Mystery. 
!  i  But  I  speak  concerning  Christ  and  the  Church." 


23 

the  original  cause  of  restoration  to  life  ;  the  person 
of  Adam  is  not  in  us,  but  his  nature,  and  the  corrup- 
tion of  his  nature  derived  into  all  men  by  propaga- 
tion ;  Christ  having  Adam's  nature  as  we  have, 
deriveth  not  nature  but  incorruption,  and  that  imme- 
diately from  his  own  Person  into  all  that  belong 
unto  Him.  t^^s  therefore  we  are  really  partakers 
of  the  body  of  sin  and  death  received  from  Adam, 
so  except  we  be  truly  partakers  of  Christ,  and  as 
really  possessed  of  His  spirit,  all  we  speak  of  eternal 
life  is  but  a  dream.  (§7)  That  which  quickeneth  us 
is  the  spirit  of  the  second  Adam,  and  His  Jlesh  is 
that  wherewith  He  quickeneth.  That  which  in 
Him  made  our  nature  incorruptible,  was  the  union  of 
His  Deity  with  our  nature.(§S). ..  These  things,  St. 
Cyril  duly  considering,  reproveth  their  speeches, 
which  taught  that  only  the  Deity  of  Christ  is  the  '  vine 
whereupon  we  do  depend  as  branches,  and  that 
neither  His  flesh  nor  our  bodies  are  composed  in  this 
resemblance.'  For  doth  any  man  doubt  but  that 
even  from  the  flesh  of  Christ  our  very  bodies  do 
receive  that  life,  which  shall  make  them  glorious  at 
the  latter  day,  and  for  which  they  are  already 
accounted  parts  of  his  blessed  body?  (§9)...  This, 
therefore,  is  the  necessity  of  Sacraments.  That 
saving  grace  which  Christ  originally  is  or  hath  for 
His  people,  by  Sacraments,  He  severally  deriveth 
into  every  member  thereof.  Sacraments  serve  as  the 
instruments  of  God  to  that  end  and  purpose  . . .  For 
we  take  not  Baptism  nor  the  Eucharist  for  bare 
resemblances  or  memorials  of  things  absent,  neither 
for  naked  signs  and  testimonies  assuring  us  of  grace 


1 


«4 

received  before,  but  (as  they  are  in  deed  and  in  verity) 
for  means  effectual  whereby  God,  when  we  take  the 
Sacraments,  delivereth  into  our  hands  that  grace 
available  unto  eternal  life,  which  grace  the  sacra- 
ments represent  or  signify,  (c.  57.  §5.)  Baptism  doth 
challenge  to  itself  the  inchoation  of  those  graces,  the 
consummation  whereof  dependeth  on  mysteries 
ensuing.  We  receive  Christ  Jesus  in  Baptism  once, 
as  the  first  beginner;  in  the  Eucharist  often, as  being 
by  continual  degrees  the  finisher  of  our  life.  (§6) . . . 
Our  souls  and  bodies  quickened  unto  eternal  life  are 
effects,  the  cause  whereof  is  the  person  of  Christ ; 
His  body  and  blood  are  the  true  well  spring  out  of 
which  this  life  floweth.  So  that  His  body  and  blood 
are  in  that  very  subject  whereunto  they  minister  life 
— not  only  by  effect  or  operation,  even  as  the  influ- 
ence of  the  heavens  is  in  plants,  beasts,  men,  and  in 
everything  which  they  quicken — but  also  by  a  far 
more  divine  and  mystical  kind  of  union  which 
maketh  us  one  with  Him,  "  even  as*  He  and  the 
Father  are  one."  (c.  58.  §6.) 

Such,  Rev.  Sir,  is  the  teaching  of  the  greatest 
doctor  in  modern  English  theology ;  teaching  on 
which  our  Church,  both  in  England  and  America, 
has  put  her  highest  approval.  His  celebrated  work 
on  the  "  Laws  of  Ecclesiastical  Polity,"  is,  and  has 

*  i.  e.  by  nature  ;  thus  St.  Peter  speaks  of  our  being  made  "partak- 
ers of  the  Divine  nature."  This  is  the  constant  doctrine  of  the 
Catholic  fathers,  that  the  children  of  Adam,  by  participation  of  God's 
Incarnate  Son,  become  His  Sons  by  proper  relationship.  Thus  St. 
Cyril  says  we  are  sons  "  naturally,  because  we  are  in  Him  and  in 
Him  alone." 


25 

been  for  years,  a  text  book  for  our  students  in  Divi- 
nity, so  appointed  too  by  the  authorities  of  the  church. 
And  as  he  Uved  in  the  age  of  Elizabeth,  it  can  only 
be  ignorance,  or  something  worse,  that  can  call 
teaching  like  his  a  "  novelty"  in  the  church  ;  though 
doubtless  such  teaching  is  new  to  many  whose  minds 
are  possessed  by  religious  notions  which  are  novel- 
ties in  the  church,  the  "  novelties  ivhich  disturb  our 
peace, ''^  but  which  are  not,  and  never  were,  of  the 
church. 

I  shall  next  cite  a  few  brief  but  pregnant  sentences 
from  the  next  greatest  name  in  the  theology  of 
modern  England ;  one  who  was  a  contemporary  of 
Hooker,  being  but  two  years  his  junior,  and  ac- 
knowledged to  be  the  chief  glory  of  the  Church  in 
the  next  reign  :  I  mean  Andrewes,  Bishop  of  Win- 
chester. "  As  by  partaking  the  flesh  and  blood,  the 
substance  of  the  first  Adam,  we  come  to  one  death, 
so  to  life  we  cannot  come  unless  we  do  participate 
with  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  'Second  Adam,'  that 
is  Christ.  We  drew  death  from  the  first  by  partaking 
the  substance,  and  so  must  we  draw  life  from  the 
second  by  the  same.  This  is  the  way ;  become 
branches  of  the  Vine,  and  partakers  of  his  Nature, 
and  so  of  His  life  and  verdure  both." — Sermon  IX. 
on  the  Resurrection. 

Once  more:  "And  so  we  pass  to  another  Mys- 
tery, for  one  mystery  leads  to  another;  this  in  the 
text  to  the  Holy  Mysteries  we  are  providing  to  par- 
take, which  do  work  like  and  do  work  to  this,  even 
to  the  raising  of  the  soul  with  the  first  resurrection. 
And  as  they  are  a  means  of  raising  the  soul  out  of 

3 


26 

the  soil  of  sin — for  they  are  given  to  us,  and  we  take 
them  expressly  for  the  remission  of  sins — so  they  are 
no  less  a  means  also  for  the  raising  our  bodies  out  of 
the  "  dust  of  death."  The  sign  of  that  Body  which 
was  thus  in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  to  bring  us  out 
from  thence  at  the  last.  Our  Saviour  saith  it,  totidem 
verbis,  "  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my 
blood  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day." — Ser- 
mon VIII. 

Finally,  a  word  from  Bishop  Overall,  a  contempo- 
rary of  Andrewes,  and  the  composer  of  the  latter 
2  portion  of  our  Church  Catechism. 

\  "  It  is  confessed  by  all  divines  that  upon  the  words 

i.  of  consecration  the  Body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  really 

and  substantially  present,  and  so  exhibited  and  given 
i|  to  all  who  receive  it ;  and  all  this  not  after  a  physical 

Wk  and  sensual,  but  after  an  heavenly  and  incomprehen- 

^  sible  manner.    But  there  remains  yet  this  controversy 

\\  among  some  of  them,  whether  the  body  of  Christ  be 

present  only  in  the  use  of  the  Sacrament,  and  in  the 
act  of  eating  and  not  otherwise.  They  that  hold  the 
affirmative,  as  the  Lutherans  (Confess.  Saxon.)  and  all 
Calvinistsdo  seem  to  me  to  depart  from  all  antiquity, 
which  places  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  virtues 
and  benediction  used  by  the  Priest  and  not  in  the 
use  of  eating  the  Sacrament." — "  And  this  did  most 
ill  Protestants  grant  and  profess  at  first,  though  now  the 

Calvinists  make  Popish  magic  of  it  in  their  licentious 
jU^  blasphemy." 

Ilj",      ■  .        These   passages  are   from  writers,   upon   whose 

teaching  the  Church  at  large,  years  and  years  ago. 
placed  the  signet  of  her  approval.     And  now  I  ask, 


IS 


3 


;  «] 


m 


27 

is  not  their  doctrine  as  distinct  from  the  current 
teaching  of  Methodist  preachers,  from  John  Wesley 
downwards,  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Articles,  Homilies 
and  Liturgy,  are  from  those  of  your  Articles  and 
Sacramental  forms?  Can  the  hundred  years'  exist- 
ence of  Methodism  produce  an  exposition  parallel 
with  those  I  have  quoted  from  Hooker  and  An- 
dre wes  ?  No,  no  ; — Wesleyans  know  nothing  of 
any  such  doctrine  ;  the  English  Dissenters  know 
nothing  of  it ;  Presbyterians  have  nothing  to  do  with 
it,  neither  have  the  so  called  Evangelicals  and  Lati- 
tudinarians  in  the  Church.  And  should  any  one 
venture  to  bring  forward  any  of  these  latter  as 
standard  writers  of  the  Church,  in  contrast  to  the 
school  of  Hooker  and  Andrewes,  such  a  presumptu- 
ous claim  may  be  silenced  by  any  one  who  shall 
compare  them  severally  with  the  authoritative  teach- 
ing of  our  Liturgy.  Any  one  who  can  construe 
English,  and  has  the  consideration  to  take  for  granted 
that  the  solemn  addresses  to  Almighty  God  in  our 
ritual,  are  not  composed  in  equivocal  language  ;  and 
that  our  catechism,  designed  for  the  instruction  of  the 
simple  and  unsophisticated  minds  of  little  children  in 
the  Christian  Faith,  is  not  made  up  of  riddles  ;  will 
be  at  no  loss  in  deciding  who  occupy  the  Church's 
ground,  who  consistently  maintain  her  principles, 
who  really  do  teach  her  faith  and  not  their  own 
opinions.  For  it  is  neither  present  popularity, 
nor  high  station,  that  can  give  any  individuals 
the  title  of  being  legitimate  expounders  of  the 
Church'' s  faith  ;  but  professed  and  proved  submission 
to  the  teaching  of  the  Church.     And  who  are  they, 


1 


■4 


28 

Rev.  Sir,  who  profess  as  a  first  principle,  this  sub- 
mission to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  as  unto  God? 

This  question  at  once  brings  me  to  say  a  word 
about  those  Oxford  divines,  of  whom  I  understand 
you  discoursed  largely.  If  they  have  put  forth  any 
opinions  peculiar  to  themselves,  they  only  are  re- 
sponsible for  them.  They  ask  no  defence,  they  need 
none.  Salva  fide,  they  have  the  right  of  all  English- 
men to  say  what  they  please  ;  and  as  they  are  learned 
and  holy  men,  their  opinions  are  of  course  entitled  to 
the  consideration  of  their  brethren  ;  but  being  opin- 
ions nobody  gives  them  further  weight  vthan  each 
person  may  think  them  severally  entitled  to.  Their 
opinions,  however,  (considered  apart  from  the  faith 
which  the  church  teaches  them,)  form  no  system,  are 
not  common  to  one  another,  and  are  adopted  by  no 
party.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  "  Puseyism  ;"  and 
you  will  surely  pardon  me  when  I  tell  you  that  I  am 
forced  to  say,  that  that  word  is  a  slander  upon  our 
Church,  a  slander  upon  Dr.  Pusey.  It  is  I  know  often 
used  without  any  such  intention;  but  people  should 
not  inconsiderately  bear  false  witness,  and  speak  evil. 

The  imaginations  of  people  are,  however,  possess- 
ed by  a  chimera  which  they  call  "  Puseyism  ;''  their 
ears  are  open  to  every  report  which  may  go  to 
magnify  its  shocking  proportions  ;  and  they  are  quite 
content  to  be  horrified,  without  taking  the  trouble  to 
examine  the  subject,  nay,  in  most  cases,  without 
being  able  to  examine  it.  How  many  persons.  Rev. 
Sir,  in  your  large  audience,  suppose  you  are  entitled 
to  any  opinion  whatever  on  the  great  controversy 
that  is  stirring  our  Church,  and  tasking  the  minds  of 


1 


29 

her  most  accomplished  sons  ?  And  yet  half  the  people 
of  Carlisle  are  expressing  their  judgments  on  points 
which  the  greatest  theologians  and  Bishops  in  our 
Church  have  spoken  on  with  diffidence.  The  ex- 
tracts from  the  controversial  writings  of  the  Oxford 
gentlemen,  which  I  am  told  you  read  from  a  little 
book,  and  which  was  apparently,  at  least,  the  basis 
of  your  own  judgments;  have  for  the  present  supplied 
the  multitude's  appetite  for  horrors,  or  perhaps,  have 
only  awakened  it  anew.  How  fair  the  quotations 
may  have  been  /  cannot  say,  but  there  were  those 
among  your  hearers  who  had  happily  drawn  for 
themselves  from  original  sources ;  and  who  were 
scandalized  by  the  manifest  misrepresentations  which 
your  readings  imposed  upon  your  uninformed 
hearers.  Surely,  IJev.  Sir,  you  are  not  ignorant  of 
the  tricks  of  modern  controversy ;  of  that  trick 
especially,  which  is  adopted  only  by  those  who  are 
unable  to  meet  a  learned  opponent  in  argument,  viz. 
to  make  brief  extracts  of  startling  passages  from 
large  volumes,  merely  ad  captandum  vulgus.  The 
only  way  to  refute  "  Puseyism,"  as  people  call  it,  is 
to  meet  Dr.  Pusey  and  his  friends  on  the  ground 
which  they  have  assumed,  not  to  frighten  the  com- 
mon people ;  for  though  you  scare  the  latter  from 
their  senses.  Dr.  Pusey's  positions  and  arguments 
still  remain  untouched.  I  am,  therefore,  only  amazed 
that  you  should  have  given  your  confidence  to  a 
compilation  of  garbled  passages  from  the  Oxford 
writers,  and  should  have  used  it  to  show  the  people 
what  was  the  truth  in  controversy,  instead  of  taking 
up  the  doctrines  one  by  one,  and  examining  fairly 
3* 


30 

the  proofs  from  scripture,  tradition,  and  the  standards 
of  our  own  Church,  which  are  brought  to  sustain 
the  several  points.  Now,  as  an  illustration  of  the 
worth  of  such  quotations  you  used,  I  will  cite  some- 
what of  Martyr  Ridley  (  no  papist  I  ween )  from 
his  disputation  which  immediately  preceded  his 
execution  ;  and  you  may  see  whether  it  would  not 
v|  have  rather  heightened  the  effect  of  your  exhibition, 

had  some  words  of  his  been  uttered  by  the  Oxford 
gentlemen,  and  skilfully  placed  in  your  mosaic  of 
"  Puseyism/* 

e.  g. "  I  say  that  both  Christ  and  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  are  there,"  i.  e.  on  the  altar,  p.  216.  (Parker 
Society's  edition,  1843.) 

"  Is  not  the  miracle  great,  trow  you,  when  bread 
which  is  wont  to  sustain  the  body,  becometh  food  to 
the  soul,"  p.  223. 

"  T  also  worship  Christ  in  the  sacrament,"  p.  235. 
Mark  the  force  of  the  word  "  also."  He  is  disputing 
with  a  Roman  Catholic.  "  We  do  handle  the  signs 
reverently,  but  we  worship  the  sacrament  as  a  sacra- 
ment, not  as  a  thing  signified  by  the  sacrament." 
"  We  adore  and  worship  Christ  in  the  eucharist,  and 
if  you  mean  the  external  sacrament,  I  say  that  also  is 
to  be  worshipped  as  a  sacrament."  p.  236. 

"  It  is  His  true  blood  which  is  in  the  chalice,  I 
grant,  and  the  same  which  sprang  from  the  side  of 
Christ,"  p.  237.  Pie  :  "  What  say  you  to  that  council, 
where  it  is  said  that  the  priest  doth  offer  an  unbloody 
sacrifice  of  the  Body  of  Christ  ?"  Ridley  :  "  I  say  it 
is  well  said  if  it  be  rightly  understood."  "  It  is 
called  unbloody,  and  is  offered  after  a  certain  manner 


^1 


*L_ 


81 

and  in  a  mystery,  and  as  a  representation  of  that 
bloody  sacrifice,  and  he  doth  not  lie  who  saith  Christ 
to  be  offered."  p.  250. 

To  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln.  "  Both  you  and  I  agree 
herein  that  in  the  sacrament  is  the  very  true  and 
natural  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  even  that  which 
was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  which  ascended  into 
Heaven,  which  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the 
Father,  which  shall  come  from  thence  to  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead ;  only  we  differ  in  Modo,  in  the 
way  and  manner  of  being.  We  confess  all,  one 
thing  to  be  in  the  sacrament  and  dissent  in  the  man- 
ner of  being  there."  "  A  Sacramental  mutation  I 
grant  to  be  in  the  bread  and  which  truly  is  no  small 
change  ;  but  such  a  change  as  no  mortal  man  can 
make  but  only  the  Omnipotency  of  Christ^s  Word," 
p.  274. 

Now,  Rev.  Sir,  I  think  I  am  not  rash  in  assuming 
that  if  I  have  here  quoted  from  the  martyr  Reformer 
Ridley,  some  words  that  are  altogether  equivalent  to 
what  the  Oxford  Divines  have  put  forth,  I  have 
also  cited  many  others  far  more  startling  than  any 
thing  that  is  to  be  found  in  your  text  book  of  "  Pusey- 
ism."  "Worshipping  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  worship- 
ping the  Sacrament  as  a  Sacrament,"  "  it  is  well  said 
that  the  Priest  doth  offer  an  unbloody  sacrifice  of  the 
Body  of  Christ,  if  it  be  rightly  understood,"  "  he  doth 
not  lie  who  saith  Christ  is  offered."  Have  the  Oxford 
Divines  uttered  anything  so  offensive  to  modern  ears  as 
these  words  of  Ridley  ?  I  trow  not.  It  would  how- 
ever be  exceedingly  unfair,  nay  dishonest,  to  exhibit 
these  passages  as  an  exposition  of  Ridley's  doctrine. 


1 


S3 

They  cannot  be  understood  without  the  quahfying 
context,  nor  even  with  it,  by  one  unversed  in  Catho- 
lic theology.  Had  you  reported  such  hard  sayings, 
nine  out  of  ten  of  your  hearers  might  have  asked, 
"what  quahfication  is  possible  for  such  words  ?"  and 
then  have  added,  "  they  carry  with  them  their  own 
condemnation  in  the  minds  of  Protestants."  And, 
Rev.  Sir,  just  as  unfair  is  it  to  attempt  an  exposition 
of  the  teaching  of  the  Divines  of  Oxford,  by  giving 
to  the  multitude  such  quotations,  as,  for  the  sake  of 
mere  popular  effect,  are  taken  from  their  writings. — 
Nay  it  is  not  only  unfair,  it  is  an  impossible  task,  A 
person  who  is  not  well  read  in  Anglican  Divinity  is 
utterly  incompetent  to  criticise  the  writings  of  the 
Oxford  Divines.  A  Methodist  or  Presbyterian  may 
be  able  enough  to  see  that  those  Divines  do  teach 
doctrines  quite  different  from,  nay  utterly  antago- 
nistic to,  what  Methodists  and  Presbyterians  are  re- 
spectively taught,  and  which  of  course  they  severally 
assume  to  be  scriptural  truth  ;  but  at  that  point,  their 
knowledge  ends  ;  that  is  the  limit  of  their  capacity  to 
judge ;  they  do  not  know  any  thing  whatever  about 
the  consistency  or  inconsistency  of  what  is  called 
Oxford  teaching,  with  the  authoritative  Creed  of  the 
Church,  and  the  standard  authors  in  Anglican  theolo- 
gy. They  may  condemn  principles  which  are  oppos- 
ed to  their  own ;  every  body  assumes  that  liberty ; 
but  they  have  no  right  to  condemn  those  principles 
as  being  inconsistent  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Angli- 
can Church,  when  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  that 
church  and  know  next  to  nothing  of  her  authorita- 
tive teaching.     Nay,  Rev.  Sir,  those  dissenters  from 


i 


S3I 

the  Church  who  do  not  know  what  her  teaching 
really  is,  are  not  backward  in  condemning  it  in  as 
strong  language  as  any  that  they  bestow  upon  the 
Oxford  Divines.  I  remember  the  able  organ  of 
English  Calvinistic  Dissenters,  viz.  the  Eclectic  Re- 
view, to  have  denounced  our  Book  of  Common 
Pra^'-er  as  the  most  awful,  "  most  dangerous  and  in- 
jurious book  which  the  English  language  contains," 
"and  by  which  myriads  of  deluded  victims  are 
blinded  to  their  character  and  danger."  And  during 
the  late  outcry  against  th(?  Education  Bill  in 
England,  Dr.  J.  Pye  Smith,  perhaps  the  most  distin- 
guished man  among  the  Dissenters,  declared  our 
Church  Catechism  to  contain  "some  of  the  most 
awful  falsehoods  that  were  ever  uttered."  Nor  were 
the  Wesleyans  absent  from  their  post  during  that 
warfare  against  a  bill  which  seemed  to  threaten  their 
children  with  the  fatal  instruction  of  our  Catechism. 
To  them  mainly  belongs  all  the  credit  of  the  victory 
which  was  won  ;  they  stopped  the  progress  of  the 
bill.  Now  I  am  not  one  among  those  who  can  con- 
demn the  conduct  of  the  Dissenters  and  Wesleyans 
in  this  matter.  They  acted  consistently.  It  was  im- 
possible for  them  to  submit  quietly  and  see  their 
children  instructed  in  religious  principles,  antagonistic 
to  their  own  ;  to  barter  what  they  believed  to  be  the 
truth,  for  the  poor  price  of  the  secular  knowledge 
which  was  to  be  obtained  in  the  government  schools. 
I  would  that  their  conduct  were  in  all  respects  as 
candid  and  straightforward  as  it  was  in  this ;  that 
they  would  consistently  oppose  the  Church  if  they 
oppose  it  at  all ;  that  they  w^ould  direct  their  assauhs 


1 


34 

against  her  authoritative  teaching,  and  not  against 
particular  individuals,  who  religiously  adopt  that 
teaching ;  that  they  would  contend  in  short  in  an 
upright,  manly  way,  making  war  upon  the  body, 
instead  of  professing  a  sort  of  hollow  truce  with  the 
church,  while  they  lose  no  opportunity  of  assassinat- 
ing any  of  her  faithful  sons  whom  they  can  reach, 
"  whetting  their  tongue  like  a  sword  and  shooting  out 
their  arrows,  even  bitter  words."  No  true  member 
of  the  Church  will  regret  it,  if  the  teachers  of  Metho- 
dism and  Presbyteria'nism  shall  show  their  tiocks 
the  difference  between  the  church  and  them...  Let 
them  make  as  vigorous  warfare  as  they  please  ;  but 
let  their  assaults  be  directed  at  principles  of  the  Church 
and  not  at  the  men  who  maintain  them.  Let  them 
set  in  the  strongest  contrast  possible,  the  opposing 
features  of  our  respective  systems  (the  stronger  the 
better),  but  let  it  be  done  truthfully  and  candidly ; 
neither  misrepresenting  our  doctrines  nor  shrinking 
from  the  plainest  and  fullest  possible  statement  of 
their  own ;  not  seeking  out  ingenious  methods  of 
interpretation  whereby  an  approximation  between 
opposites  might  be  brought  about,  but  understanding 
the  language  of  our  Church  just  as  it  is  written ; 
giving  the  church  the  common  credit  that  is  accorded 
to  serious  people  when  they  speak  on  serious  subjects, 
viz.  that  of  meaning  what  they  say  and  nothing 
else.  And  then  let  them  set  in  contrast  to  this,  just  what 
they  choose,  and  oppose  it  with  all  the  skill,  ability 
and  learning  they  can  master.  Let  us  in  short  all 
boldly  speak  out  our  own  principles,  and  consistently 
act  upon  them,  by  developing  them  into  their  legiti- 


•m 


35 

mate  consequences  and  into  deeds.  That  is  the  way 
to  prove  them.  That  is  the  way  to  assure  ourselves 
of  the  truth  or  error  that  may  be  in  them,  that  is  the 
shortest  method  of  bringing  to  an  end  the  painful 
controversies  that  have  agitated  Christendom  for 
these  three  hundred  years 

I  remain,  Rev.  Sir, 

Your  Obt.  Servant, 

Wm.  Herbert  Norris. 


Carlisle,  Pa.,  Feb.  9th,  1844. 


^ytjva'***!'^'' 


Note  A. 

The  works  of  our  controversial  writers  are  full  of  testimony  drawn 
from  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  against  the  assumed  catholicity  of 
every  Romish  tenet  or  practice,  condemned  by  the  church  in  England. 
The  "  Oxford  Tracts''  contain  some  of  the  ablest  and  most  conclusive 
arguments  against  Romanism,  as  distinguished  from  Roman  Calholicity, 
that  are  tq  be  found  in  our  language.  Mr.  Newman's  Lectures  on 
"  Romanism  and  Popular  Protestantism,"  are,  like  every  thing  that 
proceeds  from  him,  the  work  of  a  master,  irrefutable,  and  I  might 
almost  say  unassailable.  Mr.  Palmer's  works  are  of  a  similar  character. 
IJis  •'  Treatise  on  the  Church,"  when  it  first  appeared,  filled  thought. 
ful  English  Romanists  with  astonishment  and  alarm,*  and  his  late 
letters  to  Dr.  Wiseman  are  an  assault  upon  Roman  errors  unparalleled 
for  their  peculiar  intensity  and  vigor.  The  basis  of  these  great  con- 
troversial works  is  the  Tradition  of  the  Church  Catholic.  Tradition 
is  the  only  effectual  antagonist  against  Roman  claims  and  impositions. 
The  Roman  Catholic  has  his  proof  texts  from  Scripture  as  striking, 
andj37i»ia  facie  as  conclusive,  as  any  that  any  Protestant  can  adduce. 
That  the  words  "I  say  unto  thee  thou  art  Peter  (or  a  rock)  and  on  this 

*  The  letters  8f  an  upright  and  determined  R.  C.  Priest  (by  the 
name  of  Rathbun)  to  Ur.  Wiseman,  on  the  Oxford  writers,  are  my 
authority  for  this  assertion. 

4 


38 


H 


rock  (or  Peter)  I  will  build  my  Church,"  are  an  assertion  which  the 
"  Bible  alone"  interpreters  are  sorely  puzzled  at,  is  proved  by  the  mis- 
erable shifts  which  they  adopt  iii  order  to  evade  the  plain  sense  of  the 
words.     They  bind  themselves    as  a  first  piinciple  to  a  grammatical 
exegesis   of  the  sacred  text  ;  but  when   they  come  to   this  passage, 
besides  many  others  that  might  be  mentioned,  their  "principle"  is  laid 
aside,  and  up  start  half  a  dozen  wilful  interpretations   devised  for  no 
other  purpose  than  to  evade  the  Roman  claims.     Is  it  too  much  to  say 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  must    despise  such  hypocrisy  1     Anglican 
Theologians  on  the  other  hand,  commit  themselves  to  that  sense  of 
our  Lord's  promise  to  St.  Peter  which  the  early  Church  professed.  They 
can  appeal  to  Tradition.     They  are  willing  to  concede  to  the  succes- 
sors of  St.  Peter  all  the  honor  and  pre-eminence  which  at  first  were 
their    right,  if  they  will  be   satisfied  therewith.     But  until    they  shall 
accept  of  so  much,  Anglicans  concede  them  none  at  all,   and  throw 
upon  the  Popes  all  the  responsibility  for  the  schisms  in  the  Church 
which  their  usurped  and  tyrannical  jurisdiction  has  occasioned.  There 
is  one   precedent  in  Ecclesiastical   History  w  hich    alone  makes  the 
position  of  the  Church  of  England  impregnable  against  Rome.  I  mean 
the  gH-asi-schism  in  the  church  of   Antiorh,  with  the  difierent   views 
respecting  it,  which  were  common  to  East  and  West ;  and  thfe  means 
adopted  to   heal  it.     The  Pope  (  Siricius )  interfered  little,  if    any 
more  in  it  than  did  St.  Ambrose.     One  of  the  parties,  i.  e.  the  Mele- 
tian,  was  not  in  communion   with  Rome ;    and  yet   Meletius  pre- 
»      sided  in  the  second  General  Council.     Again,  an  Italian    Council  in 
which  S.  Ambrose  presided,  sent  a  letter  to  the  Emperor   respecting 
the  schism,  in  which  the   Bishops  say,  that  they  "  esteemed  the  two 
Bishops  of  Antioch,  Meletius  and  Paulinus,  as  Catholics."     Ten  years 
later,  a  Council  at  Capua  under  Siricius  referred  the  case  of  Antioch 
to  the    Patriarch  and  Bishops  of  Egypt ;  and  St.  Ambrose    wrote  to 
Theophilus  of  Alexandria  a  letter,  in  which  he  acknowledged  both  of 
the  rival  Bishops  (at  that  time  Flavius  and  Evagrius)  as  "brethren"  ; 
and  then    says  to  Theophilus,  "  we  arc  of  opinion  that  it  would   be 
proper  for  you  to  refer  your  decision   to  our  holy  brother  the  Bishop  of 
i.  Rome  ;  for  we  do  not  doubt  but  that  the  judgment  you  shall  pronounce 

»f^'  will  meet  his  approbation  ;  and  the  only  means  of^etablishing  a  solid 

peace,  will  be  for  us  all  to  concur  in  what  you  shall  decide,  and  he  ap- 
prove."    Fleury  xviii.  17.  xix.  27. 


■ 


1^1' 


39 

Now  I  submit  to  the  common  sense  of  men,  that  persons  who  refuse 
to  abide  by  the  Church's  traditional  interpretation  have  no  right  at  all 
to  appeal  to  tradition  against  the  Roman   Catholic's  literal  interpreta- 
tion of  scriptural  texts.     It  is  surely  most  impertinent  in  them  to  cite 
against  Rome,  such  a  case  as  the  above,  or  any  other  argument  from 
Tradition,  when   Rome  rests  her   claim   upon   Scripture.     So   with 
respect  to   transubstantiation.     Roman  Catholics  appeal  to  numerous 
texts  of  scripture   with  confidence,  nay  with  triumph.     Grammatical 
exegesis  shrinks  from  the   contest,  and  turns  our  Lord's  most  awful 
words  into  rhetoric,  and  devises  explanations   which  never  occurred  to 
the  mind  of  a  Christian,  by  the  space  of  fifteen  hundred  years,  until  the 
ingenuity  of  Ulric   Zwingle  discovered  that  our  Lord  did  not  mean 
what  he  said.     I  say  then  again,  it  is  most   impertinent  and   prepos- 
terous, for  any  one,  who  adopts  Zwinglian  or  other  modern    doctrines 
of  the  sacraments,  to  tell  a  Roman  Catholic  that  transubstantiation  is 
a  new  dogma.     The  latter's  private  judgment  is  as  legitimate  as  any 
others  ;  and  all  the  more  honestly  exercised    in  that  it  professes   to 
claim  for  our  Lord's  words  their  obvious  signification,  which  the  other 
rejects.     The  Anglican  too,  claims  our  Lord's   words  in  their   literal 
meaning,  even  that  which  was  received  in  the  early  Catholic  Church ; 
viz.  that  the  consecrated    symbol  is  truly  called  Bread,  and  is  Bread  ; 
and  truly  called  also  "The  Body  of  Christ"  ;  because  the  sacrament  is 
a  mystical  Unity  of  which  both  these  are  real   though  distinct  predi- 
cates ;  just  as  our  Lord's  own  Divine  Person  is  a  Unity,  of  which  are 
predicated  both  His  Divine  and  Human  Natures,  without  any   con- 
fusion, conversion,  or  transmutation  of  the  one  substance  into  the  other. 
Hence  the  consecrated  Bread  and   Wine  may  be  called  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ,  just  as  truly  and  really  as  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  is 
called  God. 

For  this  view,  as  being  most  certainly  the  true,  and  Catholic,  and 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  Anglican  Divines  appeal  to  the 
controversial  writings  of  the  old  orthodox  Fathers,  on  the  Mystery  of 
the  Incarnation.  As  an  example,  I  may  cite  some  passages  quoted 
by  our  Bishop  Pearson  in  his  exposition  of  the  Creed,  (Art,  III.  p.  247, 
note,  N.  Y.  Ed.,  1842.)  They  are  from  a  work  of  Pope  Gelasius, 
(who  lived  at  th^lose  of  the  sixth  century,)  against  the  Eutychian 
heresy,  which  affirmed  only  one  substantial  nature  of  our  Lord,  viz., 
the  Divine.     The  human,  according  to  Eutyches,  was  absorbed  or 


& 


t'ti. 


40 


V*"  transmuted  into  the   Divine  Nature.     Against  this,  the   Pope  argues 

thus :  "  Surely  the  Sacraments  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  C  hrist,  our 
Lord,  which  we  take,  are  ajDivine  thing  :  through  which,  and  by  the 
same,  we  are  made  "  partakers  of  the  Divine  Nature  :"  and  yet  the 
substance  or  nature  of  the  bread  and  wine  does  not  cease  to  be.  And 
surely  the  image  and  similitude  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are 
shown  forth  in  the  celebration  of  the  Mysteries.  Therefore  it  is  quite 
clearly  shown  to  us  that  we  must  think  of  Christ  our  Lord  Hinself,  as 
of  that  which  in  His  likeness  we  exhibit,  celebrate,  and  partake ;  that 
as  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  one  (i.  e.  the  bread  and 
wine)  pass  over  into  this  Divine  substance,  remaining  still  in  the  proper 
qualities  (proprietate)  of  their  own  nature  ;  so  also  is  it  in  respect 
of  that  principal  Mystery  (the  Incarnation)  itself,  whose  efficacy  and 
virtue  they  truly  represent ;  by  their  remaining  properly,  it  is  clear 
"that  they  demonstrate  that  one,  (because  whole  and  true)  Christ 
remains."  (Gclusius  de  duahus  naluris,  in  Biblioth.  Patr.  Lat.  t.  v.  pars. 
3.  p.  671.)  The  same  argument  is  found  in  the  second  dialogue  of 
Theodoret,  between  Eranistes  a  Eutychian  and  Orthodoxus  a  Catholic. 
From  these  it  appears  that  the  Mystery  of  the  incarnation  is  an  exact 
parallel  to  that  of  the  Eucharist,  and  we  may  argue  from  the  known 
nature  of  the  one,  to  the  other.  As  Pope  Gelasius  and  Theodoret 
argued  from  the  nature  of  the  Eucharist,  to  prove  against  the  Euty- 
chians,  that  in  the  unity  of  our  Lord's  Divine  person  there  were  two 
distinct,  incommutable,  and  permanent  natures  ;  so  may  and  do  our 
divines  argue  against  Romanists  from  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation  ;  and  prove  that  in  the  Unity  of  the  Eucharist  there  are 
two  distinct  incommuted  and  incommutable  substances  or  natures, 
viz.,  "  the  outward  and  visible  sign  and  the  inward  spiritual  grace." 
Hence,  also,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  these  two  Divine  Mysteries 
mutually  protect  each  other.  The  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist 
is  an  effectual  shield  on  the  one  hand  against  Sabellianism,  Nesto- 
rianism,  and  Socinianism.  For  one  may  well  ask  how  incorporation 
into  the  body  of  a  human  person  can  regennrate  the  fallen  sons  of 
Adam  and  make  them  sons  of  God;  how  a  partaking  of  the  body  and 
f  blood  of  a  human  person  can  give  us  any  other  life  than  that  we  have 

L,  already.     So  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  same  doctrine  a  safeguard 

!!  against  Eutychianism.    But  the  premises  of  transubstantialion  involve 

i|i  and    may  support  the    Eutychian   Heresy,  if  not  also  that   of  the 


41 

Gnostics,  who  afiirmed  among  other  follies,  that  our  Lonl's  Body  was 
a  phantasm,  exhibiting  the  "species"  or  "  accidents"  of  iuimanity,  but 
not  having  the  substance.*  In  like  manner  the  old  and  now  perhaps 
abandoned  Lutheran  and  Calvinistic  doctrines  of  the  Eucharist,  which 
destroy  the  unity  of  the  Sacrament  (the  one,  mailing  by  virtue  of  the 
assumed  ubiquity  of  our  Lord's  Body  the  mere  indwelling  thereof"  in 
with  and  under"  the  Bread  and  Wine;  the  other  separating  the  grace 
from  the  symbol)  lead  directly  to  Ncstorianism  ;  and  the  Zuinglian  to 
Socinianism.  And  perhaps  we  here  have  an  explanation  of  the 
Apostucy  of  Protestant  Switzerland  into  Socinianism  ;    and  of  the 

*  "It  [transubstantiation]  giveth  occasion  to  heretics  to  maintain 
and  defend  their  errors  ;  as  to  Marcion,  which  said  that  Christ  had 
but  a  phantastical  body ;  and  to  Eutyches,  which  wickedly  confounded 
the  two  natures  of  Christ."     Bp.  Ridley — Disputation  at  Oxford. 

The  use  of  this  argument  against  the  Roman  doctrine,  by  Ridley, 
proves  his  own  view  of  the  Eucharist  to  have  been  that  which  I  have 
claimed  as  catholic.  He  could  not  have  argued  from  the  Incarnation 
against  an  erroneous  view  of  the  Eucharist,  unless  he  believed  the 
"great  mystery  of  godliness"  Q' magnum  sacramentum  pietatis'")  to 
have  a  parallel  in  that  other  mystery  which  is  its  perpetual  manifes- 
tation in  the  Church. 

As  another  perspicuous  statement  of  the  same  view  compare  the 
following  :  "  Cyprian  the  Martyr  shall  tell  you  how  it  is  that  Christ 
callethit,  saying  Panis  est  corpus,  cibus, potus,  caro,^c.  Bread  is  the 
Body,  meat,  drink,  flesh,  because  that  unto  this  material  substance  is 
given  the  property  of  the  thing  whereof  it  beareth  the  name."  S. 
Cyprian's  words,  as  quoted  by  the  Editor,  are  "  Ipse  enim  et  panis,  et 
caro,  et  sanguis  ;  idem  cibus  et  substantia  ct  vita  factus  est  Ecclesiae 
suae,  quam  corpus  suum  appallat,  dans  ei  participationem  spiritus." 
i.  e.  For  Himself  is  both  bread,  and  flesh  and  blood;  the  same  has 
become  both  the  food  and  life  of  His  Church  which  He  calls  His 
Body,  giving  to  it  a  participation  of  [His]  Spirit. — Conferences  between 
Bourne  and  Ridley. —  Works,  p.\G\. 


( 


a. 


I 

il! 


fill 


r 


t'id, 


42 

almost  universal  prevalence  of  Nestorianism  and  ^wssz-Sabellianism  in 
what  are  called  Orthodox  Protestant  denominations.^ 

j-  The  proof  is,  the  extraordinary  popularity  of  Mr.  Jacob  Abbott's 
writings,  and  such  like  works  ;  and  the  prevailing  spirit  of  irreverence 
that  can  dare  to  think  or  speak  of  our  Lord  otherwise  than  as  God. 

The  unlearned  reader  may  be  informed  that  Nestorianism  holds 
that  our  Lord  has  a  human  as  well  as  Divine  personality ;  i.  e.  it  denies 
that  Almighty  Gud  the  Son  was  properly  born  of  the  Virgin,  but  only 
a  man  in  whom  the  Divine  nature  dwelt.  Sabellianism  is  the  denial 
of  the  Divine  personality  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  teaching 
that  our  Lord  was  a  human  person  in  whom  was  a  manifestation  or 
functions  of  the  Deity. 


m 


1 


NOTE  B. 

The  argument  in  the  foregoing  letter,  although  directed  specially 
against  Methodism,  has  of  course  a  general  bearing,  equally  strong, 
against  all  who  maintain  in  common  with  the  Methodists,  those 
peculiar  views  on  the  Rule  of  Faith,  the  means  of  Justification,  and 
.the  Sacraments,  which  I  have  shown  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  Angli- 
can Church.  It  was  not  mere  wilfulness  by  which  the  original 
Methodists  were  guided,  when  they  altered  our  XXXIX.  Articles  and  ^^^, 

Liturgy.     However  much  mistaken   they   may  have  been,   in  their  ^5! 

judgments,  or  rash,  or  deficient  in  theological  knowledge  ;  no  one  can 
justly  deny  them  to  have  been  serious  and  conscientious  men,  who  pro- 
posed to  themselves  a  high  aim,  and  pursued  it  with  unfaltering  zeal. 
Their  own  principles  they  understood  well  enough,  and  they  saw  that 
those  were  inconsistent  with  the  theological  system  of  the  XXXIX. 
Articles.  By  altering  those  Articles  and  the  Liturgy,  they  condemned 
the  Church,  and  of  course  are  in  turn,  so  far  forth  condemned  by  the 
Church  ;  so  also,  are  their  principles,  by  whomsoever  held,  virtually 
under  the  same  condemnation.  Having  seen  what  the  Lutheran  spirit 
has  done  with  our  Articles  and  Liturgy  where  it  had  free  scope  ;  we  may 
presume,  of  course,  that  it  would  do  the  like  again  if  it  had  a  similar 
opportunity.  The  restlessness  which  is  continually  shown  under  our 
Baptismal  office,  the  fanciful  interpretations  and  ingenious  theories 
that  are  devised  to  explain  away  its  doctrine,  all  point  to  the  same 


,K 


44 

end.  But  the  XXXIX.  Articles  expressly  acknowledge  that  doctrine, 
and  therefore  are  altogether  as  untenable  ground  for  the  Lutherans  as 
the  Baptismal  office.  This  important  fact  needs  to  be  insisted  on. 
The  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  carries  with  it  the  Catholic 
Sacramental  S3'stem,  and  therefore  claims  the  Articles  for  that  System. 
It  should  be  borne  in  mind  also,  that  every  Roman  doctrine  condemned 
by  the  Church  of  England,  is  specified  in  the  Articles;  but  there  is 
not  the  smallest  hint  that  Rome  is  in  error  in  respect  of  Baptism. 
That  doctrine  was  never  in  controversy  between  the  two  Communions. 
Their  agreement  therefore  in  it,  is  absolute  and  entire  ;  equally  as  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation.  Hence,  it  is  undeniable 
that  the  XXXIX.  .\rticlcs  are  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  modern 
Lutheran  antisacramontal  doctrine  of  .lustificalion. 


^ 


k 


THE  ^ 

•?■ 

FUNDAMENTAL  DOCTRINES  OF  THE  CHURCH  ifh 


4. 

•    r 

VINDICATED  FROM 


ALL  AFFINITY  WITH    METHODISM: 


IN    A    REVIEW 


Ik 


OF  THE  LETTER  OF  THE  REV.  J.  P.  DURBIN,  D.  D.,  ASSERTING 

THEIR  IDENTITY. 


w 


BY  WM.  HERBERT  NORRIS,  M.  A., 

RECTOR  OF  ST.  JOHN's  CHURCH,  CARLISLE,  PA. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

GEORGE  &  WAYNE,  26  SOUTH  FIFTH  STREET.  V     t 

1844.  * 


1 


KINO  AND  BAIRD,  PRINTERS,   9  GEORGE  STREET. 


»3  "I  protest  and  openly  confess,  that  in  all  my  doctrine  and  preaching,  both  of 
the  Sacrament  and  of  other  my  doctrine,  whatsoever  it  be,  not  only  I  mean  and 
judge  those  things  as  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  most  holy  fathers  of  old,  mth  one 
accord,  have  meant  and  judged,  but  also  I  -would  gladly  use  the  same  words  that 
they  used,  and  not  use  any  other  words,  but  to  set  my  hands  to  all  and  singular 
their  speeches,  phrases,  ways,  and  forms  of  speech,  which  they  do  use  in  their 
treatises  upon  the  Sacrament,  and  to  keep  still  their  interpretation." 

Archbishop  Ceanmer,  Appeal  at  his  Degradation. 


"  The  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  of  His  Holy  Supper,  if  we  rightly  use  the 
same,  do  most  assuredly  certify  us,  that  we  be  partakers  of  His  Godly  Nature, 
having  given  unto  us  by  Him  immortality  and  life  everlasting,  and  so  is  Christ, 
naturally  in  us.  And  so  we  be  one  with  Christ,  and  Christ  with  us,  not  only  in 
will  and  mind,  but  also  in  very  natural  properties." 

Chasmeb,  Remains,  v.  ii.  p.  407. 

"You  flee  from  the  four  proper  matters  that  be  in  controversy  unto  a  new 
scope  devised  by  you  that  I  should  absolutely  deny  the  presence  of  Christ, 
and  say  that  the  Bread  doth  only  signify  Christ's  Body  absent,  which  thing  I 
iTETEH  SAID  NOR  THOUGHT.  And  Es  Christ  saith  not  so,  nor  Paul  sailh  not  so> 
then  so  likewise  I  say  not  so,  and  my  book  in  divers  places  saith  clean  contrary." 

lb.  V.  iii.  p.  40. 

"  And  yet  the  Bread  is  changed,  not  in  shape  nor  substance,  but  in  nature,  as 
Cyprian  truly  saith,  not  meaning  that  the  natural  substance  of  bread  is  clear 
gone,  but  that  by  God's  Word  there  is  added  thereto  another  higher  property, 
nature  and  condition.  ...  So  that  now  the  said  mystical  Bread  is  both  a  corporal 
food  for  the  body  and  a  spiritual  food  for  the  soul." 

Jb.  V.  ii.  p.  340.    Jenkyns'  Edition. 


REVIEW. 


The  same  reasons  which  led  me  in  the  first  instance  to  give  a 
pubHc  and  pointed  contradiction  to  Dr.  Durbin's  assertion  of  the 
identity  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  taught  respectively  by  the 
Methodists  and  the  Church  of  England,  induce  me  to  notice  the 
Letter,  which  purports  to  be  a  reply  to  the  one  I  addressed  to  him. 
My  object  was  then  simply  to  correct  the  erroneous  opinions  to 
which  he  had  given  currency,  and  which  I  found  were  believed  on 
his  authority ;  my  purpose  now  is  the  same.  The  letter  is  not  less 
calculated  to  lead  ill-informed  persons  astray  from  the  truth  than 
his  public  discourses. 

When  I  learned  that  Dr.  Durbin  had  proposed  to  deliver  a 
discourse  on  what  he  and  others  think  fit  to  call  "  Puseyism,'' 
I  felt  nowise  anxious ;  nor  did  I  imagine  that  I  should  ever  be 
called  upon  to  notice  anything  he  might  choose  to  say  on  such  a 
subject.  Even  after  I  had  known  of  his  extraordinary  assertion 
of  the  identity  of  Methodism  with  the  Church,  in  respect  of  the 
three  fundamental  points  discussed  by  him,  I  felt  equally  indifi"er- 
ent  about  the  matter,  and  expressed  my  indifference  to  others. 
It  did  not  for  once  occur  to  me  that  any  one  would  believe  what 
was  so  notoriously  otherwise,  even  though  it  had  been  said  by 
the  Rev.  and  dignified  President  of  Dickinson  College.  I  thought, 
but  as  it  seems  too  hastily,  that  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
was  at  least  as  well  known  in  this  community  as  Dr.  Durbin ; 
and  accordingly  I  took  it  for  granted,  that  any  one  who  might 
choose  to  form  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  would  examine  the 
very  plain  language  of  that  book,  and  judge  for  himself  of  the 
extravagance  of  his  statements.  Even  if  a  person  uncatechised 
in  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  with  a  mind  preoccupied  by  an 

antagonist  system,  should  not  be  able  to  understand  all  he  might 

1* 


r.. 


see  in  our  Prayer  Book,  and  know,  for  example,  what  was 
meant  by  Regeneration  in  Baptism  ;  still  he  could  see  that  such 
a  doctrine  was  therein  taught  most  distinctly ;  and  seeing  that,  he 
would  know  of  course,  that  on  such  fundamental  points  as  the 
New  Birth  of  the  Gospel,  and  Justification,  the  Church  must  be 
at  the  farthest  remove  from  Methodism,  as  inculcating  a  religi- 
ous system,  not  merely  unlike  the  latter,  but  heterogeneous  to 
it.  But  unhappily,  1  discovered  that  this  very  obvious  way  of 
arriving  at  a  just  judgment  in  so  important  a  case,  was  over- 
looked by  some  for  whom  I  naturally  felt  a  deep  concern.  I 
had  therefore  no  alternative.  An  imperious  sense  of  duty 
obliged  me  to  contradict  with  proofs,  the  erroneous  notions  pro- 
claimed by  Dr.  Durbin.  I  could  not  degrade  my  pulpit  with 
such  a  controversy,  even  so  far  as  therein  to  take  the  remotest 
notice  either  of  Methodism,  or  of  Dr.  Durbin's  assertions ;  and  my 
only  course,  was  to  address  him  publicly  on  the  subject. 

I  am  not  surprised  to  find  that  I  have  made  hiin  uneasy  :  nor 
to  hear  his  dolorous  complaints,  not  simply  on  account  of  the 
manner  in  which  I  expressed  myself,  but  because  I  joined  issue 
with  him  on  his  assertion,  that  Methodism  was  identical  with  the 
Church  system  on  the  three  points  he  discussed.  He  seems  to 
think,  that  I  ought  rather  to  have  entered  upon  a  regular  defence 
of  the  writings  of  certain  divines  of  Oxford  j  and  thus  to  have 
obtruded  my  assistance  not  only  where  it  was  not  needed,  but 
where  it  would  have  been  highly  indelicate,  and  perhaps  injuri- 
ous to  them.  I  beg  to  say  then,  that  under  no  circumstances 
could  I  engage  in  such  a  controversy  with  Dr.  Durbin.  He 
might  have  preached  his  lifetime  out  on  the  writings  of  Dr. 
Pusey  and  Mr.  Newman,  without  having  been  troubled  with  a 
word  from  me.  The  little  that  I  did  say  of  those  divines,  in  my 
Letter,  was  drawn  from  me  by  the  fact  that  their  names  and 
writings  are,  against  their  own  will,  made  a  'touchstone  of 
opinion,'  and  are  identified  with  principles  which  are  the  com- 
mon heritage  of  every  member  of  the  Church  ;  so  that  unhappily 
it  is  almost  impossible  effectually  to  assert  and  maintain  those 
principles  as  the  property  of  the  Church,  without  appearing  to  be 
the  advocate  of  men.  Nor  again,  if  Dr.  Durbin,  like  his  brother 
Wesley ans  in  England,  had  denounced  our  Church  for  her  erro- 


neous  teaching,  would  I  have  cared  to  give  him  a  word  of  reply. 
I  should  have  felt  satisfied  that  her  own  reputation  was  her  all 
sufficient  defence.  But  indeed  I  could  not  treat  his  proffered 
compliments  with  the  same  calm  indifference.  Our  people  are 
not  used  to  attacks  by  such  weapons,  by  sugared  pills  of  poison. 
And  therefore,  even  at  the  risk  of  being  charged  with  arrogance,  I 
was  forced  to  hand  him  back  his  compliments.  But  hereupon  I 
am  told,  with  admirable  naivete, 

"A  good  Christian  would  have  thought  that  the  declaration  of  a  strict  agreement 
between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  and  Protestant  Episcopal  churches  on  three 
fundamental  points  of  Christianity  would  have  gratified  your  pride,  if  not  edified 
your  apostolic  charity." 

Now  granting  that  I  may  be  chargeable  with  pride,  still  one 
is  at  a  loss  to  conceive  how  it  possibly  could  be  gratified  by 
hearing  that  we  bore  any  affinity  with  Methodism ;  and  as  to 
"apostolic  charity,"  I  have  learned  from  St.  Paul,  that  that  greatest 
of  the  Christian  graces  'rejoices'  only  'in  the  truth.'  No  matter 
then  what  was  or  was  not  "  dreamed"  by  Dr.  Durbin  ;  even  sup- 
posing his  "christian  communion  of  more  than  a  million  mem- 
bers" were  ten  times  its  present  size,  and  "  three  years  older" 
{risum  teneatis  amici  ?)  than  that  of  which  I  am  an  unworthy 
servant,  the  case  would  not  be  in  the  slightest  degree  altered.  It 
would  not  be  true  that  the  Methodists  are  agreed  with  the  church 
in  her  faith  ;  and  "  apostolic  charity"  would  rather  he  grieved 
than  edified,  at  hearing  such  statements  as  those  which  he  has 
hazarded.  The  church  in  the  United  States  is  nowise  ashamed 
of  being  a  "  little  flock."  She  would  have  cause  to  suspect  her- 
self wanting  in  some  notes  of  Apostolicity,  were  she  popular 
with  the  world  ;  because  "  as  He  is,  so  are  we,  in  this  world  ;" 
"  the  world  knoweth  us  not,  because  it  knew  Him  not." 

All  therefore  that  Dr.  Durbin  says  about  my  "  changing  the 
issue,"  and  "  making  a  new  issue,"  amounts  to  nothing  more 
than  an  unconscious  confession,  that  he  has  taken  too  much  upon 
himself  in  asserting  the  agreement  of  Methodism  with  the  Church, 
in  fundamentals.  I  made  no  issue  whatever,  new  or  old  ;  I  simply 
joined  with  him  in  an  issue  made  by  himself.  He  made  the 
statement  which  I  have  combated,  publicly,  in  his"  own  proper" 
person  ;  whether  incidentally  or  not,  is  nothing  to  me.  It  was  not 
therefore  "  discourteous"  in  me  to  address  him  "  publicly,"  in 


8 

order  to  disprove  what  he  said.  Whether  it  was  necessary  or 
not  to  do  so,  I  am  the  judge  and  not  he.  Neither  can  it  be 
"  unfair"  nor  "  uncandid"  under  any  circumstances  to  controvert 
error  by  means  of  truth — Dr.  Durbin's  complaints  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding. 

Of  course  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  his  motives  in  dehvering 
his  unfortunate  discourses ;  and  I  only  notice  what  he  says  of 
them,  to  direct  attention  to  a  secret  which  he  has  divulged,  and 
which  a  well  judging  public  never  would  have  guessed  at.  He 
writes  to  me, 

"  The  'Oxford  teaching'  which  you  had  stealthily*  and  gradually  introduced  into 
the  community  here,  together  with  the  general  excitement  in  the  Protestant 
churches,  led,  without  my  knowledge,  to  a  resolution  of  the  leaders'  meeting  of 
our  Church,  requesting  me  to  deliver  a  series  of  discourses  on  the  Oxford  doc- 
trines." 

Here  we  are  gravely  informed  that  this  mock- Vatican  con- 
clave, "  the  leaders'  meeting,"  undertook  the  presentation  of  me 
and  my  official  ministrations,  to  the  notice  of  the  Rev.  Doctor  in 
Divinity,  the  President  of  Dickinson  College,  for  the  sake  of  en- 
gaging him  to  lift  his  puissant  arm  against  me.  It  would  have 
been  well  for  him  had  he  simply  told  his  "  leaders'  meeting  "  to 
give  heed  to  St.  Paul's  advice,  "  to  study  to  be  quiet  and  to  do  their 
own  business,"  instead  of  lending  himself  to  be  the  mouth-piece  of 
their  impertinence.  And  to  do  him  nothing  less  than  justice,  it 
becomes  me  to  acknowledge  that  he  did  "  hesitate"  before  he 
proceeded  to  act  upon  their  presentation.  But  the  "  leaders" 
were  not  to  be  so  easily  put  off;  they  urged  that  many  besides 
their  own  congregation  desired  his  action  in  this  matter.  "  Still 
he  hesitated."  He  'received  several  messages  from  respectable 
citizens  asking  his  compliance;'  and  '  one  gentleman  not  a  Metho- 
dist called  on  him  personally ;'  at  last  this  interesting  coquetry 
ended,  by  his  yielding  a  qualified  assent  to  the  urgent  suit, 
because  he  was  "  unwilling  to  awaken  religious  controversy  in 
the  community."  His  discourses  therefore,  despite  the  load  of 
apologies  they  contained,  and  the  disclaimers  of  a  direct  condem- 
nation of  any  thing  or  any  body,  were  yet  aimed  at  me  person- 

*  It  cannot  be  expected  that  I  should  make  any  reply  to  this  gratuitous  insult, 
especially  since  it  loses  all  point  in  being  supremely  ridiculous. 


ally  and  at  my  official  teaching.    All  this  unlooked  for  information 
chimes  in,  most  harmoniously  to  be  sure,  with  his  complaint. 

"To  attempt  to  give  the  controversy  a  personal  bearing  by  addressing  your 
pamphlet  to  me  in  my  own  proper  name  and  office,  to  say  the  least,  was  unne- 
cessary and  discourteous." 

Again,  he  seems  to  think  it  strange  that  I  should  have  replied 
to  "reported  statements."  My  justification  is,  that  I  knew  the 
report  I  used,  to  be  .^rue.  The  knowledge  I  acted  on,  was  de- 
rived from  half-a-dozen  independent  sources,  each  one  giving 
concordant  testimony  to  the  fact,  that  he  had  asserted  the  identity 
of  Methodism  with  the  Church's  doctrine,  on  three  fundamental 
points.  I  acted  upon  the  highest  moral  certainty.  Dr.  Durbin's 
hand  and  seal  would  not  have  added  strength  to  the  convic- 
tion. If  my  information  had  proved  false,  then  there  might  have 
been  some  ground  for  complaint,  and  I  should  have  been  a  fair 
mark  for  sarcasm.  But  since  it  was  true  ;  since  he  confesses  its 
truth,  and  writes  a  pamphlet  to  prove  those  very  reported  state- 
ments which  I  criticised  and  denied  ;  it  betrays  something  like  the 
petulance  of  a  spoiled  child,  for  him  to  refer  in  the  manner  he 
does  to  the  sources  of  my  information.  It  would  at  least  have 
been  more  manly  in  him  to  have  stood  by  his  declaration  with- 
out any  of  this  pitiful  ado. 

He  is  also  much  aggrieved  because  I  stated  a  matter  of  fact,  that 
"  there  were  those  among  his  hearers  who  were  scandalized  by 
the  manifest  misrepresentations  which  his  readings  imposed  upon 
his  uninformed  hearers."  (See  my  letter,  p.  29.)  Now  this  cer 
tainly  is  a  fact  whether  those  persons  were  justly  scandalized  or 
not.  Be  it  observed  however,  that  I  was  careful  not  to  impeach 
his  character  in  this  statement.  I  assumed  that  he  had  not  him- 
self made  the  quotations  which  he  used  ;  but,  that  he  read  them 
from  a  "  little  book"  purportnig  to  be  a  "  confutation  of  Pusey- 
ism  ;"  to  which  book  he  had  given  an  undue  confidence  ;  and 
therefore,  that  he  deceived  others  only  because  he  had  been 
in  the  first  instance  deceived  himself.  The  quotations  I  adduced 
from  Ridley  were  made  to  show,  how  easily  such  a  book  might 
have  been  constructed.  I  may,  however,  have  been  more  charita- 
ble to  Dr.  Durbin  than  just ;  at  least,  the  startling  developments  of 
his  capacity  for  misrepresentation,  which  are  found  in  his  Letter, 
would  suggest  such  a  conclusion.     Of  these  I  shall  say  nothing 


10 

at  present.     They  will  be  brought  to  light  in  the  course  of  my 
remarks. 

I  proceed  now  to  an  examination  of  the  means  which  Dr. 
Durbin  has  used  to  overthrow  my  former  arguments,  and  to 
establish  his  original  assumption  of  the  identity  of  Methodism 
and  the  Church's  doctrine,  on  the  Rule  of  Faith,  the  means  of 
Justification,  and  the  Eucharist. 

1.  Of  the  Rule  of  Faith.* — Dr.  Durbin  begins  his  discussion 
of  this  point  with  a  very  imposing  air.  He  publishes  our  Vlth 
Article  and  the  corresponding  Methodist  Article,  side  by  side,  and 
then  triumphantly  asks  me,  "Are  they  not  identical?  How  then 
could  you  publish  to  the  world  that  they  are  opposed  ?"  The 
simple  answer  is  that  I  did  not  "publish  to  the  world  that  they 
are  opposed"  in  their  letter  ;  but  that  he  gave  an  interpretation  to 
the  Vlth  Article  which  the  XXlh  would  not  warrant ;  and  which 
the  discipline  of  the  church  and  her  uniform  practice  denied.  My 
words  were  these : — 

"  You  read  our  Vlth  Article  so  as  to  make  it  exclude  the  authority  and  tradi- 
tion of  the  Church  Catholic  from  having  any  interference  in  the  Church's  Rule 
of  Faith  for  individuals.  In  the  first  place  I  deny  that  the  Article  makes  any 
such  exclusion ;  for  itself  appeals  to  tradition  to  support  its  own  decision  as  to  the 
character  of  the  apocryphal  books.  . .  Secondly,  the  XXlh  Article  declares  that  the 
Church  hath  authority  in  controversies  of  faith,  and  presupposes  her  paramount 
right  to  expound  Scripture,  by  saying  that  she  ought  not  to  decree  any  thing  against 
the  same,  nor  besides  the  same,  to  enforce  any  thing  to  be  believed  for  necessity  of 
salvation.  The  whole  of  this  article  also  the  Methodists  from  the  necessities  of 
their  condition  have  rejected." 

Now  the  ground  here  taken  is  extremely  simple.  It  is  assumed 
that  the  Vlth  and  XXth  Articles,  which  are  both  constituent 
portions  of  one  document,  are  consistent  with  each  other,  and 
must  be  so  interpreted.  It  was  not  only  granted,  but  maintained 
by  me,  that  the  Church  requires  nothing  to  be  believed  as  an 
Article  of  the  faith  but  what  may  be  proved  by  Holy  Scripture  ; 
this  is  the  injunction  of  the  Vlth  Article  ;  but  does  this  deny,  or  is 
it  anywise  inconsistent  with  the  fact,  that  the  Church  demands  of 

•  Let  it  be  noted  that  our  Church  has  nowhere  used  this  phrase,  "  the  Rule  of 
Faith."  She  does  not  say  that  Scripture  is  the  Rule,  nor  the  "  only  Rule  ;"  neither 
does  she  say  that  Tradition  is  a  rule.  She  asserts  simply  that  Scripture  con- 
tains all  things  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  besides  that  she  imposes  a  Creed,  one 
Article  of  which  is,  "I  believe  one  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church." 


11 

her  members  submission  to  the  faith  she  teaches,  and  which  she 
maintains  may  be  proved  by  Holy  Scripture  ?     Methodists  may 
indeed  read  their  Article  as  it  suits  them,  and  make  it  exclude 
all  creeds;  but  with  us  it  is  happily  quite  different:  for  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  Vlth  Article  we  are  bound  to  heed  the  XXth 
also,  which  asserts  the  Church's  "  authority  in  controversies  of 
faith  ;"  and  her  right  to  enforce  certain  truths  to  he  believed  for 
necessity  of  salvation,  if  they  are    susceptible    of   scriptural 
proof.     But  who  is  the  judge  of  this  proof?    The  Church  does 
not  enter  into  disputes  with  her  children.     She  does  not  stoop  to 
the  work  of  bandying  texts  of  Scripture  with  the  misbelieving. 
Suppose  then,  that  one  of  her  ministers  or  members  should  refuse 
to  abide  by  the  Nicene  formula  (o^ttoouMov)  «  consubstantial,"  on  the 
ground  that  he  could  find  no  such  word  in  Scripture,  (and  this 
was  the  very  position  of  the  Arians) ;  would  his  private  judg- 
ment, or  would  the  Vlth  Article,  save  him  from  excommunica- 
tion ?     Certainly  not ;  for  the  Church  has  ruled  (Art.  VIII.)  that 
the  Nicene  Creed  may  be  proved  by  most  certain  warrants  of 
Holy  Scripture — the  Arian's  private  judgment  to  the  contrary 
notwitstanding.  r 

It  is  really  irksome  to  multiply  words  on  a  point  so  very  plain 
as  this.  The  Church  does  claim  and  exercise  authority  in  con- 
troversies of  faith.  Her  Creed  is  a  rule  of  faith  to  her  members, 
for  she  imposes  it  upon  them  to  be  believed.  To  assent  to  the 
authority  and  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture  is  not  her  only  term 
of  communion.  The  Arian  may,  and  does  do  that,  and  so  do 
many  others  with  whom  she  holds  no  communion,  whose  creed 
varies  from  hers.  As  she  knows  but  one  Lord,  so  she  acknow- 
ledges but  One  Body,  One  Faith,  and  One  Baptism.  She  requires 
of  those  who  seek  her  Baptism  in  order  to  gain  membership  in 
the  one  Body,  the  obligation,  that  they  shall  believe  all  the 
Articles  of  that  one  Faith,  She  moreover  prescribes  a  form  of 
daily  worship  and  offices  for  the  administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, which  appointments  are  binding  on  her  clergy.  In  those 
formularies  her  creed  is  developed,  and  is  thereby  still  further 
imposed  on  her  worshipping  members  under  the  most  solemn 
sanctions.  They  are  required  to  address  Almighty  God  in  her 
prayers ;  and  those  prayers  are  so  constructed,  I  repeat,  as  to  be 


12 

at  the  same  time  confessions  of  her  faith — confessions  (would 
that  we  all  might  think  of  it !)  which  are  made  to  Almighty 
God,  the  searcher  of  hearts,  the  judge  of  men.  It  is,  I  say,  under 
such  awful  circumstances  as  these,  that  her  members  are  obliged 
to  confess  to  God,  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  taught  in  her  daily 
service,  in  her  office  for  Baptism,  and  in  the  Liturgy  of  the  Holy 
Communion — doctrines  which  it  is  the  fashion  of  the  day  to  decry, 
doctrines  as  old  as  the  Church,  and  which  the  Methodists  and 
many  others  have  repudiated  and  denounced  as  "Popery"  and 
"  Puseyism  !"  Is  there  not  here  a  most  serious  interference  with 
her  members,  in  the  formation  of  their  belief?  Is  not  her  definite 
creed  thus  made  a  rule  for  their  faith  from  lisping  infancy  to  ex- 
tremest  age?  This  Creed  is  her  authoritative  tradition.  It  is 
handed  down  {traditur)  from  Bishop  to  Bishop,  from  generation 
to  generation.  She  claims  that  it  is  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints."  The  time  cannot  be  named  when  she  cannot  prove 
it  to  have  been  believed  throughout  the  Catholic  Church.  It  did 
not  originate  in  the  sixteenth  century  ;  for  her  chief  documents 
and  devotions  in  which  it  is  expressed,  were  in  use  in  the  Church 
before  the  Reformation.  It  has  been  received  "  always,  every 
where,  and  by  all ;"  it  is  therefore  the  Catholic  Faith  ;  the  same 
faith  by  which  the  lives  of  the  saints  were  moulded,  and  which 
supported  her  Confessors  and  Martyrs  under  their  fiery  trials. 

It  is  quite  astonishing  how  any  one  can  deny  that  the  Church 
does  impose  and  enforce  her  "authoritative  traditional  creed" 
upon  her  members,  as  a  rule  for  their  individual  faith,  when 
it  is  a  fact  visible  to  one's  eyes,  and  seen  every  day,  every 
where  and  by  every  body.  The  prescribed  discipline  of  the 
Church,  moreover,  ought  surely  to  be  regarded  as  the  best 
exponent  of  her  avowed  principles ;  and  the  same  remark  may 
also  be  made  with  respect  to  the  Methodist  communion.  A 
comparison  of  the  practices  of  the  two  will  therefore  show  what 
has  been  elsewhere  proved,  to  wit,  the  essential  difference  in 
their  principles  in  regard  to  this  vital  point.  Now  with  us  a 
Creed,  and  consequently  a  Christian  profession,  are  imposed 
upon  infants  ;  and  that  before  they  are  conscious  of  so  great  a 
blessing.  These  questions  e.g.  are  put  to  the  sponsors  in  Baptism — 
"  Dost  thou  [in  the  name  of  this  child]  believe  all  the  Articles  of 


13 

the  Christian  faith  as  contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  ?"    "  Wilt 
thou  be  baptized  in  this  faith .?"     An  answer  in  the  affirmative 
is  made  a  condition  of  the  gift  of  regeneration.     Tlie  Methodists, 
on  the  other  hand,  having  no  authoritative  Creed,  and  differing 
from  us  essentially  as  to  what  Baptism  is,  have  rejected  this 
feature  of  our  office ;  and  consequently,  they  commit  themselves 
to  a  practice,  as  anti-catholic,  as  it  is  anti-Scriptural,  of  conferrmg 
baptism  without  imposing  a  Creed,  without  any  profession  of 
faith  on  the  part  of  the  candidate,  without  any  obligation  being 
imposed  upon  him  whatever.     And  yet  with  this  astounding 
circumstance  before  their  eyes,  persons  can  be  bold  enough  to  say 
that  Methodists  are  agreed  with  the  Church  in  her  fundamental 
principles  !     Moreover,  a  catechism  is  prescribed  by  the  church 
for  the  instruction  of  her  children  in  the  faith,  and  which  they 
they  are  to  be  taught  so  soon  as  they  can  learn  it ;  and  that  is 
before  they  are  able  to  exercise  their  private  judgment  upon 
Scripture.     Here  then,  the  teaching  of  the  Church  is  a  rule  for 
them  antecedent  to  all  personal  knowledge  of  Scripture.     So 
soon  as  they  are  sufficiently  instructed  in  the  catechism,  they  are 
to  be  brought  to  the  Bishop  to  be  confirmed  ;  at  which  time  they 
publicly  recognize  the  obligations  which  were  imposed  on  them 
"  in  Baptism,  wherein  they  were  made  members  of  Christ  and 
children  of  God" — obligations  which  rest  upon  the  gift  of  re- 
generation, and   the   gracious  relation   of  Sonship.     Is  it  not 
therefore  seen,  how  the  blessed  authority  and  protection  of  the 
Church  is  extended  over  her  children,  so  as  to  "  bring  them  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,"  and  to  save  them  from 
the  great  misery  of  ever  being  obliged  to  choose  a  religion  ?     Is 
it  not  seen,  I  ask  again,  how  her  Creed  is  made  a  rule  of  their 
faith  ?     But  the  practice  of  the  Methodists  is  as  different  as  pos- 
sible from  this.     Their  baptized  children  are  not  recognized  as 
Church  members.    They  have  rejected  our  Church  catechism,  be- 
cause it  is  utterly  antagonistic  to  their  religion ;  they  have  no  rite 
to  which  they  give  the  name  of  Confirmation,  thus  abandoning 
one  of  the  "  first  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ,"  (Heb.  vi. 
1) ;  and  in  baptizing  infants,  as  I  have  said,  they  neither  impose 
upon  them  any  Creed,  nor  require  that  they  shall  be  brought  up 

in  the  belief  of  any  thing  whatever.     They  are  thus  emphatic- 

2 


14 

ally  left  to  themselves,  to  their  own  wills,  or  to  the  religious 
whims  of  their  parents ;  to  their  own  private  judgment,  to  be- 
lieve nothing  or  any  thing  as  it  may  suit  them ;  to  construct  such 
a  creed  from  Scripture  as  shall  please  themselves,  or  to  become 
infidels  outright.  And  yet  the  Methodists  call  themselves  "a 
Church !" 

I  have  doubtless  said  enough  on  this  point ;  but  as  I  am  anx- 
ious to  leave  nothing  unsaid,  I  cannot  forego  the  exhibition  of 
some  further  documentary  evidence.  My  appeal  now  shall  be 
to  the  vows  which  are  imposed  on  our  Candidates  for  the  Holy 
Order  of  Priests.  The  Methodists  have  partly  followed  us  here, 
and  partly  not ;  and  the  alterations  which  they  have  made  will, 
by  the  contrast,  reveal  their  point  of  departure  from  our  princi- 
ples. They  agree  with  us  in  exacting  a  row  corresponding  to 
the  Vlth  Article ;  as  this  by  itself,  would  not  exhibit  the  ground 
taken  by  the  Church,  so  the  Ordinal  has  a  vow  answering  to  the 
XXth  Article ;  and  this  the  Methodists  have  consistently  altered 
to  correspond  with  their  rejection  of  that  Article.  I  place  them 
side  by  side. 


FROM    THE    CHURCH    ORDINAL.  FROM    THE    METHODIST   DISCIPLINE. 

Will  you  then  give  your  faithful  dili-  Will  you  then  give  your  faithful  dili- 
gence, always  so  to  minister  the  doctrine  gence  always  so  to  minister  the  doctrine 
and  the  Sacraments  and  the  discipline  of  and  Sacraments  and  discipline  of  Christ 
Christ,  as  the  Lord  hath  commanded,  as  the  Lord  hath  commanded  1 
and  as  this  Church  hath  received  the  same, 
according  to  the  commandments  of  God; 
so  that  you  may  teach  the  people  com- 
mitted to  your  cure  and  charge,  with  all 
diligence  to  keep  and  observe  the  same? 

From  this  example  is  seen  on  the  one  hand,  professed  obedi- 
ence to  the  authoritative  teaching  of  the  church ;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  a  loose  rein  given  to  the  individual's  will  and  private 
judgment.  The  Methodists,  as  it  were,  in  bitterest  irony  of 
themselves,  do  not  dare  to  impose  their  creed  and  discipline  as 
that  which  the  Lord  hath  commanded.  In  our  Ordinal  provi- 
sion is  made  for  the  security  of  the  laity.  If  the  Priests  not  only 
profess,  but  pay  implicit  submission  to  the  authority  and  teaching 
of  the  Church,  the  people  are  in  no  danger  of  being  led  off  by 


15 

their  pastors  into  heresy  and  schism.  They  will  be  saved  from 
the  ignominy  of  being  disciples  of  men  ;  from  the  self-condemn- 
ing reproach  of  bearing  any  such  name  as  <'  Wesleyans."  Had 
John  Wesley  been  faithful  to  the  vow  which  he  made  before  the 
altar  of  his  God,  he  would  not  have  been  the  founder  of  a  schism ; 
there  never  would  have  been  any  such  body  known,  as  the 
"  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

But  I  have  another  witness.  In  the  order  for  the  consecration 
of  Bishops,  the  candidate  is  required  to  make  the  following  aAvful 
oath  : 

"  In  the  name  of  God,  Amen.  I N.  chosen  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  N.  do  promise  conformity  and  obedience  to  the  doctrine,  discipline  and 
worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America :  So 
help  me  God  through  Jesus  Christ." 

The  Methodists,  with  unswerving  consistency  to  their  principles 
and  circumstances,  exact  nothing  like  this  from  their  "  Bishops." 

It  was  with  the  knowledge  of  all  these  solemn  vows  which 

rest  upon  our  Bishops  and  Priests,  that  I  took  the  liberty  of  thus 

expressing  on  p.  27  of  my  Letter,  what  he  chooses  to  regard 

as  my  "fear  of  the  great  weight  of  living    authority  in  the 

Church :" 

"Any  one  who  can  construe  English,  and  has  thel consideration  to  take  for 
granted  that  the  solemn  addresses  to  Almighty  God  in  our  ritual,  are  not  com- 
posed in  equivocal  language,  andthatour  catechism,  designed  for  the  instruction 
of  the  simple  and  unsophisticated  minds  of  little  children  in  the  Christian  Faith 
is  not  made  up  of  riddles  ;  will  be  at  no  loss  in  deciding  who  occupy  the  Church's 
ground,  who  consistently  maintain  her  principles,  who  really  do  not  teach  her 
faith,  and  not  their  own  opinions.  For  it  is  neither  present  popularity,  nor  high 
station  that  can  give  any  individuals  the  title  of  being  legitimate  expounders  of  the 
Church's  faith:  but  professed  and  proved  submission  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church." 

Fear  indeed!  such  language  looks  like  it,  forsooth.  Further- 
more, Dr.  Durbin  has  the  assurance  to  make  the  following  start- 
Ung  assertion  in  reference  to  the  last  sentence  of  the  passage : 
— "  This  a  very  convenient  way  of  disposing  of  three-fourths  of 
your  own  Bishops  including  your  own  diocesan,  who  have  de- 
clared against  you  in  America,  and  of  a  greater  proportion  in 
England."  In  other  words.  Dr.  Durbin  thinks  that  three  fourths 
of  the  American  Bishops  and  a  greater  proportion  of  the  English, 
have  forsworn  themselves,  by  denying  that  they  owe  obedience 


16 

to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  !  And  because  I  say  that  "  professed 
and  proved  sub7nissio7i  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church,"  is  neces- 
sary to  their  being  recognized  as  "  legitimate  expounders  of  the 
Churches  faith,"  I  dispose  of  their  authority  !  Dr.  Durbin  has 
incautiously  pubhshed  a  calumny  against  our  Bishops.  I  cannot 
believe  that  he  was  aware  of  the  vows  which  are  upon  them, 
when  in  his  anxiety  to  "dispose"  of  me,  he  penned  that  amazing 
sentence.  It  is  not  true  that  three-fourths  of  our  Bishops  have 
declared  against  any  point  that  I  have  maintained.  On  the  con- 
trary it  is  well  known  that  I  am  supported  by  a  large  majority. 
But  certain  it  is  that  there  is  a  very  serious  controversy  going  on 
in  the  church ;  certain  it  is,  that  two  rival  and  antagonist  theo- 
logical systems  are  contending  for  the  upper  hand  now,  as  in  the 
days  of  the  original  puritans.  Both  cannot  be  the  property  of 
the  Church  ;  and  the  advocates  of  each  cannot  be  really  obeying 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  One  or  the  other  must  be  in  the 
wrong ;  and  yet  I  will  not  believe  but  that  all  unfeignedly  sup- 
pose that  they  are  submitting  ex  animo  to  the  Church's  teaching. 
These  are  days  of  confusion  and  mental  distraction.  The  Church 
is  awaking  out  of  the  stupor  of  the  eighteenth  century,  brought 
upon  her  by  the  loss,  in  one  dire  moment,  of  her  most  learned 
and  faithful  clergy,  under  the  measures  of  that  bloodstained  and 
impure  villain  William  III ;  by  the  lifeless  latitudinarian  teaching 
of  his  creatures  Tillotson,  Burnet,  and  the  like  ;  and  by  the  bond- 
age she  is  under  to  the  civil  power ;  all  which  evils  affect  the 
Church  in  this  country,  for  we  are  all  members  of  one  Body,  and 
have  common  nerves.  It  will  not  do  then  to  judge  men  too 
strictly  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers  ;  and  the  most  that  it  becomes 
one  to  say  is  that  the  "  fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the 
children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge.''  At  all  events,  this  is  plain, 
and  it  may  be  said  without  judging  the  character  of  any  body  : 
the  advocates  of  one  of  these  rival  systems  are  loud  in  calling  for 
submission  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church  ;  the  advocates  of  the 
other  (Dr.  Durbin  being  witness)  reclaim  against  any  such  de- 
mand, and  maintain  that  their  "private  judgment"  is  a  higher 
rule  for  them  than  the  Faith  of  the  Church.  Here  is  the  point;  there 
is  no  dispute  as  to  the  supreme  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  no 
question  as  to  its  containing  all  doctrine  necessary  to  salvation ; 


17 

but  the  debate  is,  as  to  whether  the  individual's  interpretation 
shall  countervail,  and  even  set  aside  that  interpretation  which  the 
Church  gives,  which  she  has  always  maintained,  and  which  is 
identical  with  her  "  authoritative  traditional  faith."     Let  then  the 
impartial  observer  say  which  of  these  contending  parties,  judging 
them  by  these  their  own  acts,  have  the  most  rightful  claim  to  be 
recognized  as  legitimate  expounders  of  the  Church's  faith.    At  all 
events.  Dr.  Durbin  will  surely  not  venture  in  future  to  cite  against 
me  or  any  one  else,  the  authority  of  any  Bishop  whom  he  be- 
lieves to  have  declared  against  "  submission  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Church ;"  because  such  authority  must  be  ipso  facto  no  authority 
at  all.     I  cannot,  however,  answer  for  the  propriety  of  one  who 
charges  me  with  departing  from  the  doctrine  of  ihe  Church, 
because  I  maintain  the  paramount  authority  of  that  doctrine ; 
who  places  that  authority  below  the  right  which  he  thinks  we 
all  have  to  form  our  own  religious  opinions,  and  at  the  same 
time  exalts  before  me  (p.  38)  the  authority  of  particular  indi- 
viduals "  who  ought  rightfully  to  control  my  opinions  !"     Cer- 
tainly this  is  well  done,  for  an  advocate  of  the  individual's  rightful 
independence  of  Church  authority.  Catholic  tradition,  and  Creeds, 
in  the  formation  of  his  belief  and  opinions.     I  beg  to  say  that  the 
clergy  and  laity  of  the  Church  know  of  no  such  bondage  as  that 
which  Dr.  Durbin  thinks  I  "oz/^A/"  to  know  and  feel  "to  some 
extent  at  least."     To  no  extent,  I  answer.     Those  of  us  who 
know  what  are  their  privileges  in  the  Church,  are  able  to  rejoice 
in  a  freedom  which  is  not  to  be  found  except  within  her  pale, 
and  by  submission  to  her  divhiely  constituted  authority  ;  freedom 
from  self-will  and  the  "  itching  ear,"  (2  Tim.  iv.  3),  freedom 
"from  all  false  doctrine,  heresy  and  schism,"  freedom   which 
the  Church  only  can  bestow,  and  which  the  "  pillar  and  ground 
of  the  Truth,  the  Church  of  the  Living  God"  (1  Tim.  iii.  15) 
only  can  guarantee.     For  "  if  the  truth  shall  make  you  free,  ye 
shall  be  free  indeed." 

The  word  "  tradition"  is  a  great  scarecrow  in  certain  quarters ; 
and  by  the  help  of  some  coarse  language  in  our  first  Homily, 
which  Dr.  Durbin  seems  to  delight  in,  he  has  no  doubt,  made  it 
appear  more  offensive  than  is  common.     He  has  thus  shown  his 

usual  cleverness  in  saying  things  for  etfect.     From  what  has 

2* 


18 

been|said  on  pp.  8  and  9  of  my  Letter,  together  with  what  is 
here  submitted,*  my  meaning  of  the  word  may  be  gathered ;  and 
an  examination  of  our  Homilies  will  show  that  they  make  quite 
as  much  use  of  tradition  as  I  am  disposed  to  do,  and  the  same 
use.  By  some  people  the  word  is  supposed  to  mean  hearsay 
rumors  carried  from  mouth  to  mouth.  But  such  tradition  is 
repudiated  by  all  Church  writers ;  such  is  not  the  Catholic 
Creed,  nor  Catholic  Tradition  ;  such  is  not  the  testimony  of  the 
Holy  Fathers  and  Saints  and  Martyrs  of  the  Church,  to  "  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus."  It  is  not  to  such  testimonies  as  these 
that  the  first  Homily  refers  when  it  speaks  of  the  "  stinking 
puddles  of  men's  traditions  devised  hy  men's  imaginations.'"  The 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  as 
defined  by  the  General  Councils  of  the  Church,  are  Catholic  tra- 
ditions. The  very  Homily  from  which  Dr.  Durbin's  taste 
selected  the  above  sentence,  appeals  to  tradition,  by  referring  to 
the  teaching  of  the  "great  clerk  and  godly  preacher  St.  John 
Chrysostom."  The  authority  and  teaching  of  more  than  forty 
of  the  Fathers  is  constantly  appealed  to  by  the  Homilies  as  that 
which  we  ought  to  follow.  They  say  that  "  the  Primitive 
Church  is  specially  to  be  followed  as  most  incorrupt  and  pure," 
(2  B.  ii.  pt.  3.)  and  they  speak  of  those  six  councilst  which  were 

*  For  some  observations  on  the  Right  of  private  judgment  and  kindred  mat- 
ters see  Appendix  A. 

f  To  wit,  Nice,  A.  D.  325.  Constantinople,  A.  D.  381.  Ephesus,  A.  D,  431. 
Chalcedon,  A.  D.  451.     Constantinople,  A.  D.  553.     Constantinople,  A.  D.  680. 

In  this  connection  it  will  be  instructive  to  consider  the  following  extracts  from 
the  credentials  furnished  our  delegates  to  the  Oriental  Church,  as  showing  both 
whom  we  regard  as  members  of  the  Catholic  family,  and  what  we  acknowledge 
as  the  true  basis  of  Catholic  communion. 

"The  arrogant  assumptions  of  universal  supremacy  and  infallibility,  of  the 
Papal  head  of  the  Latin  Church,  render  the  prospect  of  speedy  and  friendly 
intercourse  with  him  dark  and  discouraging.  The  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  therefore,  looking  to  the  Triune  God  for  His  blessings  upon  its  efforts 
for  unity  in  the  Body  of  Christ,  turns  with  hope  to  the  patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, the  spiritual  head  of  the  ancient  and  venerable  Oriental  Church." 

"They  [the  delegates]  will  make  it  clearly  understood  that  their  church  has 
no  ecclesiastical  connexion  with  the  followers  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  and 
takes  no  part  in  their  plans  or  operations  to  diffuse  the  principles  of  their  sects." 

Again — « they  will  present  themselves  ...  to  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 


19 

allowed  and  received  of  all  men.  {lb.  pt.  2.)  Dr.  Durbin's  cita- 
tion from  the  first  Homily  is  therefore  quite  gratuitous.  His 
application  of  the  words  ''  stinking  puddles,"  &c.,  to  the  tradi- 
tion which  I  have  maintained  is  a  gross  misrepresentation  of  the 
Homily.  His  request  that  I  should  read  that  Homily  in  my 
Church  is  excessively  rude,  and  so  is  his  invitation  to  me  to  re- 
view my  ordination  vows.  Again,  when  he  speaks  of  my  using 
"the  authoritative  words  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in 
defining  tradition,"  viz.  as  "  that  which  has  been  believed  always 
every  where,  and  by  all ;"  and  says  that  I  thereby  show  clearly 
that  I  receive  tradition  as  a  rule  of  faith  in  the  same  sense  as 
that  Church ;"  he  proves  that  he  does  not  know  what  he  is 
writing  about.  Those  words  are  the  original  words  of  a  writer 
who  lived  in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century.  They  are  taken 
from  the  Commonitory  of  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins  and  are  univer- 
sally referred  to  by  theologians  as  the  "  Canon  of  Vincentius."^ 
Equally  absurd  is  it  to  say,  that  I  hold  tradition  in  the  same 
sense  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  for  if  I  did,  I  could  not  but 
be  a  Roman  Catholic,  I  could  not  but  acknowledge  the  Creed  of 

inviting  him  to  a  friendly  correspondence  with  the  heads  of  the  Church  in  the 
United  States,  explaining  more  fully  the  views  and  objects  of  their  Church,  and 
inquiring  whether  a  mutual  recognition  of  each  other  can  be  eifected,  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ,  on  the  basis  of  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
first  councils,  including  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  Creeds,  in  order  to  a  future 
efficient  co-operation  against  Paganism,  false  religion  and  Judaism."  Dated  2d 
January,  1843,  and  signed  by  the  late  Senior  Bishop  Griswold,  and  by  the  Bishops 
of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Connecticut,  Missouri,  and  Pennsylvania. 

*  St.  Vincent's  words  are  worth  heeding.  "Inquiring  often  with  great  desire 
and  attention  of  very  many  excellent  holy  and  learned  men,  how  and  by  what 
means  I  might  assuredly,  and  as  it  were  by  some  general  and  ordinary  way,  dis- 
cern the  true  Catholic  faith  from  false  and  wicked  heresy ;  to  this  question  I  had 
usually  this  answer  from  them  all,  that  whether  I  or  any  other  desired  to  find 
out  the  fraud  of  heretics  daily  springing  up,  and  to  escape  their  snares,  and 
willingly  would  continue  in  a  sound  faith,  himself  safe  and  sound,  that  he  ought 
two  manner  of  ways  by  God's  assistance  to  defend  and  preserve  his  faith;  that  is, 
first,  by  the  authority  of  the  law  of  God ;  secondly,  by  the  tradition  of  the 
Catholic  Church." 

"Again,  within  the  Catholic  Church  itself  we  are  greatly  to  consider  that  we 
hold  that  which  hath  been  believed  every  where,  always  and  of  all  men;  for  that  is 
truly  and  properly  Catholic  (as  the  very  force  and  nature  of  the  word  doth  declare) 
•which  comprehendeth  all  things  in  general  after  an  universal  manner,  and  that 


20 

Pope  Pius  and  the  Council  of  Trent,  I  could  not  but  maintain  that 

there  are  articles  of  faith  found  elsewhere  than  in  Holy  Scripture, 

viz.,  as  the  Council  of  Trent  says,  in  "unwritten  traditions." 

But  it  seems  that  some  how  or  other,  right  or  wrong,  I  am  to  be 

proved  not  only  a  "  Papist,"  but  something  worse.     He  says : 

"You  show  clearly  that  you  receive  tradition  in  the  same  sense  as  that  Church 
and  even  in  a  stronger  sense,  for  you  say,  (p.  20)  <  There  is  no  more  discordance 
in  the  tradition  of  the  Church  Catholic  in  respect  of  this  principle  than  of  God's 
existence.'    Verily  this  is  strange  language  in  a  Protestant  community." 

Verily,  I  reply,  to  do  as  Dr.  Durbin  has  here  done,  is  stranger 

conduct  in  a  community  that  expects  men  to  have  at  least 

some  regard  for    truth.     How  could  he  have  the  hardihood 

to  take  those  words  of  mine  which  I  used  in  speaking  of  the 

Incarnation  and  Salvation  by  the  "  Word  made  flesh,"  and  give 

out  that  I  thus  spoke  of  tradition.     Here  is  the  connexion  in 

which  those  words  occur. 

"  Your  founders  did  not  believe  that  our  fallen  human  nature  is  cleansed  by 
the  glorified  and  divine  human  nature  of  Christ,  that,  '  our  sinful  bodies  are 
made  clean  by  His  Body,'  that  the  latter  gives  us  life  even  as  Adam's  gave  us 
death.  On  this  principle,  Rev.  Sir,  is  built  the  sublime  Theology  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  this  is  the  great  exponent  of  her  teaching  as  it  has  come  down  to  us  from 
Apostolic  days,  and  been  proclaimed  with  one  mouth  in  every  section  of  the 
Apostolic  family  in  every  age.  There  is  no  more  discordance  in  the  tradition  of 
the  Church  Catholic  in  respect  of  this  principle  than  of  God's  existence." 

It  has  been  observed  that  I  have  made  use  of  the  first  clause  of 
our  XXth  Article — "  The  Church  hath  power  to  decree  rites  and 
ceremonies  and  authority  in  controversies  of  faith;"  and  in  my  Let- 
ter I  appealed  also  to  a  well  known  Canon  of  1571.  The  authority 
of  both  these  Dr.  Durbin  has  impeached,  and,  in  his  own  opinion, 
has  overthrown.  It  is  my  duty  therefore  to  defend  them.  First, 
of  the  disputed  clause  of  the  Article.  I  remark  then,  that  grant- 
ing its  spuriousness,  nothing  is  gained  ;  for  the  latter  portion  of 
the  Article  assumes  the  paramount  right  of  the  Church  to  expound 

shall  we  do  if  we  follow  universality,  antiquity,  consent.  Universality  shall  we  fol- 
low thus,  if  we  profess  that  one  faith  to  be  true  which  the  whole  Church  through- 
out the  world  acknowledgeth  and  confesseth.  Antiquity  shall  we  follow  if  we 
depart  not  any  whit  from  those  senses  which  it  is  plain  that  our  holy  elders  and 
fathers  generally  held.  Consent  shall  we  likewise  follow,  if  in  this  very  anti- 
quity itself  we  hold  the  definitions  and  opinions  of  all  or  at  any  rate  almost  all 
the  priests  and  doctors  together." 


21 

Scripture  and  to  "  enforce'^  certain  things  "  to  be  believed  for 

necessity  of  salvation."     Secondly,  supposing  the  clause  to  have 

been  originally  an  interpolation,  it  has  become  authoritative  by 

the  sanction  of  the  Church.     Before  the  Convocation  of  1603, 

(as  has  been  the  case  ever  since)  the  Article,  as  it  now  stands, 

was  received  as  one  of  the  XXXIX  Articles  of  1562.     So  much 

then   settles  its  present  authority.     Dr.  Durbin's  impeachment 

rests  upon  the  following  passage  from  Burnet. 

"  One  alleration  of  more  importance  was  made  in  the  year  1571.  These  words 
of  the  XXth  Article,  The  Clmrch  hath  power  to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies  and  authority 
in  controversies  of  faith,  were  left  out  both  in  the  manuscripts  and  in  the  printed 
editions,  but  were  afterwards  restored  according  to  the  Articles  printed  Anno  1563. 
I  cannot  find  out  in  what  year  they  were  again  put  in  the  printed  copies.  They 
appear  in  two  several  impressions  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time,  which  are  in  my 
hands.  It  passes  commonly  that  it  was  done  by  Abp.  Laud,  and  his  enemies  laid 
this  upon  him  among  other  things,  that  he  had  corrupted  the  doctrine  of  this 
Church  by  this  addition ;  but  he  cleared  himself  of  that  as  well  he  might,  and  la 
a  speech  in  the  Star  Chamber  appealed  to  the  orignal  and  affirmed  these  words 
were  in  it." 

Of  this  passage  I  remark,  that  Burnet's  assertion  that  the  clause 
was  left  out  "  both  in  the  manuscript  and  in  the  printed  editions 
of  1571,"  is  contradicted  by  authority  that  he  himself  produces. 
At  his  own  request,  the  Master  of  C,  C.  College,  Cambridge, 
made  two  collations ;  one  of  the  "  Otnginal  MS."  with  the 
printed  edition  of  1563,  and  with  the  edition  of  1553  of  "  King 
Edward's  Articles ;"  the  other  collation  was  of  the  "  Otnginal 
MS."  of  1562,  with  the  MS.  and  printed  edition  of  1571. 
Now  as  to  Article  XX,  the  results  of  this  last  collation  are  as 
follows,  according  to  the  record.* 

"  Art.  20.  MS.  The  Church  hath  power  to  decree  rites  and 
ceremonies,  and  authority  in  controversies  of  faith.     And  yet. 

These  ivords  are  not  in  the  original  MS. 

MS.  Ought  it  not  to  enforce  any  thing. 

Pr.  It  ought  not  to  enforce  anything." 

This  collation  then  proves,  that  both  the  MS.  of  1571,  and 
the  printed  edition  of  1571  contained  the  disputed  clause ;  and 
that  the  same  was  not  in  the  "  Original  MS."  of  the  XXXIX 
Articles,  that  is,  of  the  year  1562,  which  every  body  knows.  Bur- 
net's statement  therefore  is  only  one  instance,  among  many  others, 

*  Burnet's  Exposition,  N.  Y.,  1843,  p.  15. 


22 

of  his  heedlessness  in  reporting  facts.  With  this  agrees  the  ac- 
count given  by  Dr.  Cardwell  in  his  SynodaUa,  (p.  34,  note.)  The 
original  MS.  (i.  e.  of  1562,)  was  laid  before  the  Queen  but  did  not 
receive  her  sanction.  But  a  year  afterwards  the  articles  were 
printed  by  her  command,  with  the  declaration,  that  they  had  her 
"  royal  approval."  This  was  the  "  printed  edition  of  1563,"  to 
which  Burnet  refers ;  and  this  edition  diifers  from  the  "  Original 
MS."  of  1562,  in  having  the  disputed  clause,  and  in  excluding 
the  XXIXth  Article. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  therefore  that  this  clause  was  origin- 
ally inserted  by  the  Queen  and  Privy  Council,  to  whom  a  right  of 
interference  in  such  matters  was  then  conceded.  However,  no 
matter  who  was  the  author,  it  afterwards  received  the  sanction 
of  the  Church,  and  it  appeared  in  the  printed  editions  of  1563, 
1571,  1581,  1586,  1593,  1612, 1624,  1628,  1629,  1630,  1631,  and 
others  that  are  all  in  the  Bodleian  Library.  There  were  also 
two  editions,  one  Latin,  the  other  English,  published  in  1571,  and 
agreeing  with  the  Original  MS.  of  1562. 

As  to  the  calumny  against  Abp.  Laud,  that  is  refuted  by  the 
passage  which  Dr.  Durbin  cites.  Burnet  says,"  he  cleared  him- 
self of  that,  as  well  he  might,  and  in  a  speech  in  the  Star  Chamber 
appealed  to  the  original,  and  affirmed  these  words  were  in  it." 
And  yet  in  the  face  of  this  he  says  "  in  the  judgment  of  charity  (!) 
[Dr.  Durbin's  charity?]  it  may  be  concluded  as  it  was  commonly 
in  Bishop  Burnet's  time,  that  the  passage  was  foisted  into  the 
Article  by  Abp,  Laud,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  back  the 
Church  to  Rome." 

O  Judgment,  thou  art  fled  to  brutish  beasts ; 
And  men  have  lost  their  reason  ! 

How  could  archbishop  Laud  have  "  foisted  those  words  into  the 
article,"  when,  as  even  Burnet  says,  "  they  appeared  in  two 
several  impressions  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time  which  were  in 
his  hands" — that  is  before  Laud  was  born,  or  while  he  was  a 
boy  ?  This  stale,  oft-repeated  and  as  often-refuted  Puritan 
calumny  may  now  surely  be  consigned  to  the  "tomb  of  the 
Capulets,"  there  to  rest  in  fit  companionship  with  the  "  Nag's 
head"  fable  of  the  Jesuits. 

I  proceed  to  consider  the  Canon  of  1571.     Dr.  Durbin  says,  I 


23 

knew  this  had  never  been  of  authority  in  the  church.  I  reply,  I 
did  not  know  it,  neither  do  I  now.  It  is  authority ;  the  authority 
of  the  church.  It  is  her  voice,  her  command— pubUshed  under 
the  hand  and  seal  of  all  the  Bishops  of  England,  at  the  time ; 
and  it  has  never  been  recalled,  modified,  or  explained  away. 
Nor  could  the  church  have  abrogated  it,  without  passing  sentence 
of  condemnation  against  herself,  her  creeds,  liturgy,  and  homilies ; 
without  a  departure  from  those  principles  on  which  she  justified 
her  Reformotion.  But  why  were  not  the  Canons  of  1571  accom- 
panied by  the  royal  sign-manual?  Because  the  Queen  had 
objection  to  that  paragraph,  which  I  quoted,  and  which  with  all 
the  rest  was  approved  and  signed  by  such  men  as  Grindal  and 
Jewell  ?  The  idea  is  supremely  absurd,  as  every  one  who  re- 
members the  stern  unbending  front,  with  which  Elizabeth  met 
the  Puritans  and  their  measures  for  further  reformation,  must 
perceive  at  once.  Dr.  Cardwell  in  his  Synodalia,  gives  some 
passages  from  Strype's  life  of  Parker  which  go  far  towards 
solving  the  difficulty. 

«  The  Archbishop  laboured  to  get  the  Queen's  allowance  to  it,  (i.  e.  the  book 
of  Canons)  but  had  it  not :  she,  often  declining  to  give  her  license  to  their  orders 
and  constitutions,  reckoning  that  her  bishops'  power  and  jurisdiction  alone, 
having  their  authority  derived  from  her,*  was  sufficient.  In  the  month  of  July 
or  August  the  Archbishop  sent  this  book  to  Grindal,  Archbishop  of  York,  re- 
commending  it  to  the  observation  of  the  Clergy  of  his  province;  and  for' his 
judgment  of  it. 

"  What  that  Archbishop's  thoughts  of  it  were  is  worth  observing ;  which 
appears  from  his  answer  he  sent  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  as  follows  : 
'He  thanked  his  grace  for  the  book  of  articles  and  discipline,  but  he  stood 
in  doubt  whether  they  had  vigorem  legis  unless  they  had  been  concluded  upon  in 
synod,  and  after  ratified  by  her  majesty's  royal  assent  in  scriptis  (fine  words 
added  he,  fly  away  as  wind,  and  will  not  serve  us,  if  we  were  impleaded  in  a 
case  of  praemunire  ;)  or  else  were  confirmed  by  act  of  parliament.  He  said  he 
liked  the  book  very  well ;  and  that  if  hereafter  he  should  doubt  in  any  point,  or 
wish  it  enlarged  in  any  respect,  he  would  signify  to  his  grace  hereafter.  And  if 
there  were  at  present  want  of  sufl!icient  authority,  yet  it  was  well  the  book  was 
ready  and  might  receive  more  authority  at  the  next  parliament:'  yet  we  see  he 
and  his  provincial  bishops  signed  it. 

"But  notwithstanding  these  doubts  and  suspicions  which  did  not  without 
reason  arise  in  the  minds  of  these  and  other  of  the  bishops,  (knowing  what 
watchful  back-friends  they  had)  yet  they  proceeded  according  to  the  above  book  of 
discipline,  especially  in  what  concerned  their  clergy  in  their  respective  dioceses." 
*  Strype's  Eraslianism  commits  nobody  but  himself. 


24 

The  Canon  in  question,  let  it  be  observed,  "concerned  their 
Clergy."     Its  title  is  Concionatores. 

Elizabeth's  conduct  in  this  matter  (of  her  motives  presently) 
receives  illustration  from  the  manner  in  which  she  acted  towards 
another  book  of  discipline,  (the  libellus  admonitionuni)  whose 
authority  is  assumed  in  the  canons  of  1571,  in  the  canon  prescribing 
the  duties,  &c.,  of  Church  wardens  [Aeditui).  Of  this  book 
Dr.  Cardwell  remarks,  "The  celebrated  Advertisements  of  1564, 
which,  acting  on  the  same  principles  as  in  the  case  of  these 
canons  the  Queen  refused  to  put  forth  with  her  sanction.,  although 
she  had  required  the  bishops  in  commission  to  draw  them  up, 
and  afterwards  insisted  that  they  should  be  rigorously  enforced. 
By  this  and  by  other  synods,  they  seem  to  have  been  considered 
as  having  the  most  perfect  author ity.^^ 

And  yet  they  had  not  the  ratification  of  the  Queen's  signature, 
no  more  than  the  canons  of  1571.  The  two  codes  of  discipline 
stand  exactly  upon  the  same  ground. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  discover  Elizabeth's  motives.  A  new  order 
of  things  had  just  been  introduced ;  principles  were  not  estab- 
lished ;  confusion  reigned  in  the  Church,  and  necessity  in  certain 
cases  took  the  place  of  precedent  and  law.  Elizabeth's  Catholic 
predilections  are  well  known  ;  she  stood  between  the  Parliament 
and  the  Church,  firmly  checking  the  encroachments  of  the  former 
upon  the  prerogatives  of  the  latter.  They  had  enacted  that  she 
was. the  supreme  temporal  head  of  the  Church,  and  she  acted 
upon  their  statute,  to  foil  parliamentary  interference  ;  while  she, 
at  the  same  time,  showed  her  anxiety  to  have  the  Church  govern- 
ed solely  by  Episcopal  authority,  in  not  obtruding  her  sanctions 
upon  the  canons  of  discipline  enacted  by  the  Convocation  or  the 
Bishops.  Accordingly,  when  in  15G2  the  Commons  interfered 
with  the  Church,  by  passing  a  bill  ratifying  the  XXXIX  Articles, 
and  then  sent  their  bill  up  to  the  Lords ;  she  stopped  its  progress 
before  it  had  passed  to  the  second  reading,  considering  it,  as  she 
said,  (for  it  was  all  she  could  say  to  Parliament)  an  encroach- 
ment upon  her  prerogative  as  supreme  head  of  the  Church. 
Again,  when  in  1571  the  Commons  made  a  similar  effort,  the 
following  message  was  sent  from  the  Lords  to  the  Commons, 

that  the  Queen's  majesty  having  been  made  privy  to  the  said 


a 


Articles,  liketh  very  well  of  them  and  mindeth  to  publish  them, 
and  have  them  executed  hy  the  Bishops,  by  direction  of  her 
highness'  regal  authority  of  supremacy  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  not  to  have  the  same  dealt  in  by  Parliatnent.^^  And 
on  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Advertisements  of  1564 
were  enforced,  under  her  command,  solely  by  the  authority  of  the 
Church  ;  and  in  like  manner  the  Canons  of  1571. 

These  Canons  have,  moreover,  ever  since  been  esteemed  as 
authority,  except  by  those  persons  who,  agreeing  with  the  infidel 
Hobbes,  suppose  that  the  State  is  the  Church,  the  "  public 
authority  to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard," 
(spoken  of  in  Art.  23)  "  the  authority  of  the  State,"*  and  the 
Bishops  and  Clergy,  officials  of  the  sovereign  rather  than  Priests 
of  the  Most  High  God.  I  was  not  therefore  following  Dr. 
Pusey,  as  Dr.  Durbin  with  characteristic  cleverness  insinuates, 
when  I  appealed  to  the  Canon  in  question.  It  was  not  he,  who 
led  me  to  cite  it,  but  the  noble,  learned,  and  saint-like  Beveridge, 
who  died  more  than  a  century  ago.  It  was  the  use  he  had  made 
of  it  in  one  of  his  sermons  on  the  Church,  which  first  impressed 
my  mind  with  its  authority  and  forceful  meaning.  His  words 
are  full  of  wisdom. 

"  Especially  it  concerns  us  who  are  to  instruct  others  in  the  way  to  bliss,  to 
use  none  but  sound  words,  such  as  are  consonant  to  the  Scriptures,  as  interpreted 
by  the  Catholic  Church  in  all  ages.  I  speak  not  this  of  myself ;  it  is  the  express  com- 
mand  of  our  Church  in  the  Canons  she  put  forth  in  the  year  1571,  where  she 
hath  these  words  :  Imprimis  vero  videbunt  QCondonatores')  &c.,  &c.  ['  But  the 
preachers  shall  in  the  first  place  see  to  it  that  they  never  teach  anything  in  the 
pulpit  which  they  may  wish  to  be  religiously  held  and  believed  by  the  people, 
except  what  is  agreeable  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and 
what  the  catholic  Fathers  and  ancient  Bishops  have  collected  out  of  that  very 
doctrine.']  So  wisely  hath  our  Church  provided  against  novelties  ;  insomuch 
that  had  this  one  rule  been  duly  observed  as  it  ought  there  would  have  been  no 
such  thing  as  heresy  or  schism  amongst  us  ;  but  we  should  all  have  continued 
firm  both  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Universal  Church,  and  so  should 
have  held  fast  the  form  of  sound  words,  according  to  the  Apostles'  counsel."-)- 

So  much  for  the  authority  of  the  Canon  of  1571 ;  now  for  my 
alleged  use  of  it :  I  am  asked — 

*  Durbin's  Observations  in  Europe,  vol.  2,  p.  80,  note.    Has  Dr.  Durbin  ever 
read  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  ] 
\  Beveridge's  Sermons  in  the  Library  of  Anglo-Catholic  Theology,  Sermon  VI. 

3 


26 

"  How  could  you  venture  to  produce  this  Canon  in  support  of  one  of  the  capital 
errors  of  Popery,  and  this  too  when  it  was  not  designed  to  favour  your  interpre- 
tation, but  exactly  the  contrary,  as  would  have  appeared  to  your  reader  had  you 
quoted  the  whole  of  it,  instead  of  quoting  only  so  much  as  Dr.  Pusey  had  pro- 
duced in  his  Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  1  The  latter  part  of  the  Canon  reads 
thus:  'They  [preachers]  shall  not  teach  vain  and  senseless  opinions,  and 
heresies,  and  Popish  errors,'*  and  this  too  at  a  time  when  Popish  errors  as  now 
were  rife  in  the  Church  of  England  1" 

The  amazing  imbecility  of  this  passage  will  save  Dr.  Durbin 
from  the  retort  it  invites.  My  only  answer  therefore  is,  that  I  did 
not  quote  the  Canon  in  support  of  one  of  the  capital  errors  of 
"  Popery,"  but  to  exhibit  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  Church 
of  England.  Dr.  Durbin,  it  seems,  has  not  the  ability  to  perceive 
that  because  the  Canon  charges  the  clergy  not  to  preach  vain  and 
senseless  opinions  and  Popish  errors,  and  also,  not  to  preach  any 
thing  at  any  time,  {ne  quid  U7iguam)  but  that  which  is  agreeable 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  what  the 
Catholic  Fathers  and  ancient  Bishops  have  collected  out  of 
that  very  doctrine  ;  therefore,  what  the  Catholic  Fathers  taught 
as  Scriptural  doctrine,  is  not  "popish  error;"  following  such 
traditional  teaching  in  obedience  to  the  Canon  is  not  "a  capital 
error  of  popery."  I  gave  it  no  other  interpretation  than  that 
which  every  body  gives  it ;  which  every  body  must  give  it ; 
which  even  Dr.  Durbin  gives  it,  in  trying  to  impeach  its  authority. 
The  sum  of  my  remarks  was  as  follows  : 

"  You  must  therefore  perceive.  Rev.  Sir,  that  obedience  on  the  part  of  Anglican 
divines  to  the  Canon  of  their  Church  is  not  to  act  inconsistently  with  the  Vlth 
Article.  A  recognition  of  the  '  authority  of  the  Church  in  controversies  of  faith,' 
submission  to  what  she  'enforces  to  be  believed'  as  Scriptural  truth,  (Art.  XX.) 
preaching  only  what  the  catholic  Fathers  and  ancient  Bishops  have  collected 
out  of  Scripture  does  not  deny  but  rather  maintains  that  Holy  Scripture  con- 
taineth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation." 

II.  I  now  proceed  to  substantiate  the  ground  I  maintained  in 

*  Why  did  not  Dr.  Durbin  proceed  with  what  he  puts  forth  as  his  quotation, 
and  give  what  immediately  follows  as  a  contrast  to  "  Popish  errors,"  "nee  omnino 
quicquam,"  &c.  &c.  i.  e.,  "  Nor  anything  whatever  whereby  the  ignorant  multi- 
tude may  be  incited  to  a  fondness  for  novelty,"  &c.  "  Popery"  was  no  novelty, 
but  Puritanism  then  was  the  novelty  of  the  day.  Perhaps  Dr.  D.  quoted  from 
his  "  Confutation  of  Puseyism,"  which  would  explain  all  this  and  more  besides. 


27 

my  Letter,  on  the  means  of  Justification  ;  not  that  my  position 
needs  any  strengthening  at  all,  but  simply  for  the  sake  of  de- 
veloping the  proofs  I  there  advanced,  that  minds  which  have 
been  sophisticated  by  sectarian  dogmas  may  be  able,  if  possi- 
ble, to  see  what  is  the  Church's  doctrine,  and  that  it  stands  utterly 
opposed  to  the  teaching  of  Methodism. 

Dr.  Durbin  begins  his  remarks  on  this  subject  in  his  usual  ad 
captandum  style  ;  he  places  our  Xlth  Article  side  by  side  with  his 
own,  and  then  bravely  asks,  "  are  they  not  identical  ?"  To  be 
sure  they  are  in  their  letter  (except  that  ours  confesses  itself  to  be 
an  incomplete  statement,  which  his  does  not),  and  I  never  had 
the  stupidity  to  deny  it.  I  discussed  no  such  point  as  this,  but 
rather  that  his  interpretation  of  the  words  "  faith  only,"  so  as  to 
exclude  not  merely  our  own  merits,  but  also  all  sacramental 
media,  whereby,  solely  for  Christ's  sake,  and  not  for  our  works, 
justification  is  given  to  faith  ;  gives  a  meaning  to  our  Article 
which  neither  its  own  text,  nor  Holy  Writ,  nor  the  Homily,  nor 
our  Church's  teaching  elsewhere  will  warrant.  All  this  I  shall 
prove  as  I  proceed. 

I  stated  as  an  undeniable  fact,  that  the  Article  raised  but  one 
point,  viz.  the  ground  or  procuring  cause  {propter  quod)  of  man's 
justification  ;  to  wit,  the  merits  of  Christ  in  opposition  to  our  own 
works  or  deservings.  A  man  half  blind  can  see  this  on  reading 
the  English  of  the  Article,  but  for  the  sake  of  those  whose  vision 
is  yet  more  obscure,  I  shall  cite  the  Latin  version  (which  is  the 
original  draft)  where  the  order  of  the  words  indicates  the  em- 
phasis:  "Tantum /jro/^^e/- meritum  Domini  ac  Servatoris  nostri 
Jesu  Christi,  per  fidem,  non  propter  opera,  et  merita  nostra, 
justi  coram  Deo  reputamur.  Quare  sola  fide  nos  justificari," 
&c. ;  that  is  literally  and  in  the  same  order,  "  Only /or  the  sake  of 
the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  by  faith,  and  not 
for  the  sake  o/our  works  and  merits,  are  we  reputed  just  before 
God.  Wherefore  that  we  are  justified  only  by  faith  is  a  doctrine 
most  wholesome  and  full  of  comfort,  as  in  the  Homily  concern- 
ing the  justification  of  man  is  more  largely  unfolded."  The  last 
sentence  of  the  Article  is  introduced  by  ^'^  wherefore,'"  and  conse- 
quently it  is  a  conclusion  deduced  from  what  goes  before,  thus 


28 

showing  that  the  words  "  we  are  justified  only  by  faith,"  means 
nothing  more  and  nothing  less  than  this,  that  "  we  are  reputed 
just  only  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  our  Lord,  by  faith,  and  not 
for  the  sake  of  our  works  and  merits.  So  much  for  the  text  of 
the  Article.  But  to  put  our  Church's  meaning  of  the  words 
"  faith  only,"  beyond  dispute,  I  referred  as  the  Article  directs,  to 
the  Homily,  where  the  doctrine  is  more  largely  expressed,  in 
order  to  obtain  its  decisive  judgment.  In  making  this  reference, 
the  opportunity  occurred  of  giving  an  example  of  the  Church's 
use  of  her  own  prescribed  rule  of  teaching,  and  accordingly  I 
said,  "  that  Homily  professes  to  deliver  the  doctrine  as  it  had 
always  been  received,  by  the  Fathers  and  Doctors  of  the  Church 
Catholic,"  which  shows  ours  is  not  the  Lutheran  doctrine.  To 
prove  this  assertion  I  quoted  the  words,  "  And  after  this  manner 
to  be  justified  only  by  this  true  and  lively  faith,  speak  all  the  old 
and  ancient  authors,  both  Greeks  and.  Latins."  Hereupon  Ur. 
Durbin  tries  his  skill  in  the  construction  of  scare-crows,  and  pro- 
ceeds to  solicit  the  shame  and  grief  of  all  good  men  for  me,  be- 
cause I  omitted  the  words  "  in  Christ,"  after  the  word  "  faith" — 
the  merest  accident,  caused  by  my  hastily  following  the  usual 
elliptical  phrase,  "justification  by  faith,"  wherein  the  Object  of 
faith  is  always  understood  and  always  omitted.*  I  do  not  believe 
there  are  any  good  men  so  stupid  as  to  feel  any  shame  at  all  on 
my  account,  though  it  is  possible  they  may  have  some  pity  for  Dr. 
Durbin,  for  that  he  should  say  that  I  made  this  omission  "to  lead 
the  reader  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  faith  was  to  be  had  in 
Sacraments  !"  I  take  it  upon  me  to  say  that  a  more  preposterous 
idea  never  entered  into  the  mind  of  man.  There  never  was  a 
man  who  believed  that  he  was  justified  by  faith  in  the  Sacra- 
ments ;  and  before  Dr.  Durbin  arose,  there  never  was  a  man  who 
believed  there  was  any  such  nonsense  possible.  But  this  is  not 
all :  he  says  that  I  "  very  carefully  suppressed  the  quotations 
which  the  Homily  gives  from  Hilary  Basil  and  Ambrose."     Ex- 

*  I  hope  I  shall  not  be  charged  with  wilfully  "  causing  shame  and  grief  to  all 
good  men"  if  I  point  to  a  similar  oversight  in  the  translation  of  our  IXth  Article. 
It  reads,  "And  although  there  is  no  condemnation  for  them  that  believe  and  are 
baptized,"  &c.  The  Latin  is,  "  Et  quanquam  renatis  et  credentibus  nulla  propter 
Christum  est  condemnatio ;"  i.  e.  literally,  "  And  although  for  Chrisfs  sake,  there 
is  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  regenerate  and  believe." 


29 

cellent !  And  that  when  the  passages  from  those  Fathers  simply 
occupy  the  ground  of  the  Article  as  I  have  interpreted  it,  viz. 
opposing  Christ's  righteousness  to  man's;  His  merits  to  our 
works.  I  did  not  cite  these  passages,  because  I  had  no  occasion 
whatever  to  quote  the  words  of  those  saints.  I  referred  to  the 
homily  for  the  purpose  of  adducing  its  words  alone ;  and  what- 
ever the  words  of  those  Fathers  may  have  been,  the  homily  said, 
(which  was  enough  for  me)  that  such  and  such  was  their  mean- 
ing, which  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  homily.  They  said  no 
more  nor  less  than  this  : — 

"This  saying  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only,  freely  and  without  works,  is 
spoken  [i.  e.  by  the  fathers]  for  to  take  away  clearly  all  merit  of  our  works  as 
being  unable  to  deserve  our  justification  ....  and  therefore  wholly  to  ascribe  the 
merit  and  deserving  of  our  justification  unto  Christ  only  and  His  most  precious 
blood-shedding." 

Dr.  Durbin  seems  very  indignant  that  I  should  imagine  that 
he  and  others  who  agree  with  him  cannot,  in  their  present  cir- 
cumstances, distinctly  apprehend  the  doctrines  of  the  Church. 
But  a  more  signal  proof  of  the  truth  of  my  assertion  there  could 
not  be  than  the  remarks  he  has  made,  and  the  quotations  he  has 
adduced  upon  the  subject  of  justification.  It  was  no  matter  with 
him  that  I  maintained  the  doctrine  of  "  justification  by  faith  only" 
in  as  strong  terms  as  the  Article  ;  that  I  said  that  faith*  is  the 
sole  means,  the  sole  grace  which  qualified  us  for  a  participation 
of  the  merits  of  our  Lord  ;  that  according  to  the  homily  "  faith 
only"  is  an  exclusion  of  personal  merit  in  the  sinner,  and  of 
course  of  his  works,  from  being  the  procuring  cause  (propter 
quod)  of  his  justification;  and  an  ascription  of  all  desert  to  our 
Lord  and  His  Cross — no,  all  this  amounts  to  nothing  in  Dr.  Dur- 

*  The  kind  of  faith  here  meant,  I  explained  by  this  passage  of  the  Homily: 
"Nevertheless,  this  sentence  that  we  be  justified  by  faith  only  is  not  so  meant  of 
them,  (i.  e.  the  Fathers)  that  the  said  justifying  faith  is  alone  in  man,  without 
true  repentance,  hope,  charity,  dread,  and  the  fear  of  God  at  any  time  and  sea- 
sons." That  is,  it  is  not  bare  faith,  but  what  the  Church  writers  call  "fides  form- 
ata  charitate" — and  St.  Paul,  "faith  which  worketh  by  love."  So  also  St.  James: 
«  Seest  thou  how  faith  wrought  with  his  works,  and  by  works  was  his  faith  made 
perfect."  Ch.  ii.  22.  "  Ye  see  then  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified  and  not 
by  faith  only,"  v.  24.  Yet  St.  James  is  far  from  saying  that  works  deseiue  our 
justification,  or  that  justification  is  any  thing  else  than  a  gift  of  God's  free  mercy, 
imparted  to  us,  "  only  for  the  sake  of  the  merits"  of  our  Lord. 

3* 


30 

bin's  eyes.  He  reiterates  against  nne  quotations  from  the 
Homilies,  dressed  up  in  capitals  and  italics,  which  prove  just 
what  I  have  said,  that  we  are  "justified  freely  without  works, 
by  faith  only  ;"  thus  giving  his  reader  the  idea  that,  so  far  from 
maintaining,  I  had  denied  that  cardinal  proposition.  Such  is  the 
confusion  which  reigns  in  his  mind  on  this  subject,  that  although 
every  passage  he  quotes  opposes  faith  to  works  and  personal 
merit,  and  to  nothing  else;  yet  he  cannot  divest  himself  of  the 
notion,  that  by  the  Xlth  Article, "  faith  only"  is  opposed  also  to  the 
life-giving  grace  of  the  Sacraments,  What  is  the  consequence  ? 
Why  the  marvellous,  the  profane  absurdity,  of  placing  God's 
gift  of  the  new  birth  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Body  and  Blood, 
the  indwelling  of  the  Incarnate  Word,  in  the  same  category  with 
our  works  and  personal  virtues,  our  "repentance,  hope,  love, 
fear  and  dread  of  God  !"  Accordingly,  all  his  efforts  go  to  prove 
that  the  Church  in  teaching  "justification  by  faith  only"  means 
not  simply  "without  our  works  or  deservings,"  but  also  "  by 
faith  without  regeneration,^^  "  by  faith  without  the  indwelling 
and  quickening  spirit  of  the  Second  Adam,"  the  "  Word  made 
flesh :"  for  these  are  the  gifts  conveyed  by  the  Sacraments.  Such 
is  the  consequence  of  Dr.  Durbin's  reasoning,  if  reasoning  it  may 
be  called.  It  matters  not  that  he  does  not  believe  there  is  any 
such  grace  given  by  Sacraments ;  it  matters  not  that  the  Sacra- 
ments, so  to  speak,  of  his  Society,  are,  consistently  with  his 
religious  theory,  man's  works  and  not  God's,  and  therefore 
are,  agreeably  to  his  Article,  excluded  from  the  means  of  justi- 
fication, as  being  properly  opposed  to  faith  ; — the  Church  teaches 
very  differently  of  her  Sacraments,  and  he  knows  it ;  and  in 
quoting  the  language  of  the  Church,  he  should,  by  all  that  is  due 
to  justice  and  truth,  interpret  it  according  to  her  usage,  and  not 
by  the  principles  of  Methodism. 

After  I  had  thus  proved  that  the  Homily,  by  the  words  "  faith 
only"  simply  meant  to  shut  out  personal  merit  in  the  sinner,  and 
not  God's  gifts  from  the  means  of  justification  (an  absurdity  which, 
as  I  have  shown,  would  be  equivalent  to  saying,  that  we  are 
justifiable  by  faith  only  without  the  grace  of  justification);  and 
had  adverted  also  to  the  fact  that  that  doctrine  of  "justification 
by  faith  only"  which  has  always  been  received  in  the  Church 


31 

Catholic,  was  the  doctrine  which  the  Homily  professed  to  teach 
— I  asked  in  my  Letter, 

"What  authority,  therefore,  has  any  one  for  saying  that  our  Xlth  Article  ex- 
cludes the  Sacraments  from  being  God's  means  and  instruments  for  conveying 
justifying  grace  to  the  penitent  believer]  "Was  not  the  Sacramental  system 
maintained  in  its  fullest  vigor  by  all  those  Catholic  Fathers  to  whom  the  Homily 
appeals  (from  Origen  to  SS.  Anselm  and  Bernard*)  as  having  taught  justifi- 
cation by  faith  only  1  This  of  course  is  undeniable ;  and  therefore  quite  con- 
sistently does  the  same  Homily  recognize  the  Sacsamentsf  as  instrumental 
means  of  justification.  (See  also  Art.  XXVII.)  It  says,  "Infants  being  baptized 
are  by  this  sacrifice  (i.  e.  of  the  Cross)  washed  from  their  sins  [brought  to  God's 
favour  and  made  His  children  and  inheritors  of  His  kingdom.  And  they  which  in 
act  or  deed,  do  sin  after  Baptism,  when  they  turn  again  to  God  unfeignedly,  they 
are  likeivise  (i.  e.  as  formerly  by  Baptism,  so  now  Sacramentally)  washed  by  this 
sacrifice  from  their  sinsi;] ;  and  again,  "  our  oflice  is  not  to  pass  the  time  of  this 
present  life  unfruitfully  or  idly,  after  that  we  are  baptized  m-  justified,  much  less 
after  that  we  be  made  Christ's  members  to  live  contrary  to  the  same,  making 
ourselves  members  of  the  devil." 

Of  this  passage  Dr.  Durbin  remarks, 

"  I  have  carefully  examined  and  compared  the  Homily  with  your  views  of  it, 
and  extracts  from  it,  and  I  confess  that  I  feel  sorrow  (1)  at  what  you  have  done. 
You  have  endeavoured  to  sustain  your  doctrine  of  Sacramental  justification  by 
this  Homily  ;  when  it  does  not  make  even  an  indirect  allusion  to  that  doctrine.  If  the 
Homily  make  such  an  allusion,  I  challenge  you  to  show  where  and  in  what."      i 

Brave  words !  The  reader  who  remembers,  that  in  the  pas- 
sages just  quoted  from  the  Homily,  and  which  were  "  carefully 
examined,''  it  is  said  that  infants  baptized  are,  by  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Cross,  washed  from  their  sins,  brought  into  God's  favour, 
made  His  children  and  inheritors  of  His  kingdom;  that  "our 
office  is  not  to  pass  the  time  of  this  present  life  idly  after  that  we 
are  baptized  or  justified  (where  baptism  and  justification  are  in- 
terchangeable equivalents  for  the  same  thing);  will  perhaps  be  led 
to  doubt  whether  Dr.  Durbin  knows  that  Baptism  is  a  Sacrament. 

The  reason  is  now  apparent  why  it  was  that  I  said  I  could  not 

*  i.  e.  down  to  the  12th  century. 

f  If  one  Sacrament  be  recognized,  the  other  is  also ;  for  they  both  convey 
similar  though  not  altogether  the  same  gifts.  By  one  we  are  made  members  of 
Christ,  and  by  the  other  he  dwells  in  us ;  and  both  are  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

t  This  passage  in  brackets  was  for  the  sake  of  brevity  omitted  in  my  Letter. 
The  explanation  I  give  in  the  parenthesis  is  justified  as  well  by  the  laws  of 
grammar  as  by  the  prayer  in  the  Communion  office ;  "  Grant  us  therefore  so  to 
eat  the  flesh  of  thy  dear  Son,  and  to  drink  His  blood,  that  our  sinful  bodies  may 
be  made  clean  by  His  Body,  and  our  souls  washed  through  His  most  precious 
Blood,"  &c. 


32 

treat  of  the  Church's  doctrine  of  justification  without  taking  into 
view  the  Sacraments  ;  especially  when  I  was  obliged  to  consider 
that  doctrine  relatively  to  what  the  Methodists  maintained.  And 
herein  I  shall  prove  that  I  was  moving  directly  in  the  line  marked 
out  for  me  as  well  by  the  Church  as  Holy  Scripture. 

Is  the  remission  of  sins  an  element  of  justification  ?  All 
agree  that  it  is,  and  some  maintain  that  that  is  all.  It  is 
an  Article  of  the  Creed,  "  I  acknowledge  one  Baptism ybr  the 
the  remission  of  sins."  In  our  Baptismal  oifice  we  pray  for  the 
Candidate  that  he  coming  to  Holy  baptism,  may  receive  remis- 
sion of  sin  by  spiritual  regeneration.  After  he  is  baptized  the 
minister  says,  "seeing  now  dearly  beloved  that  this  person  is 
regenerate  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church,  let  us 
give  thanks,"  &c.  So  too  the  Homilies  besides  the  passages 
already  quoted :  "  Yea  we  be  therefore  washed  in  baptism  from 
the  filthinesss  of  sin,  that  we  should  live  afterwards  in  pureness 
of  life."  2  B.  13,  pt.  1.  So  too  St.  Peter,  in  the  first  sermon  ever 
preached  in  the  Church  :  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  such  also  was  the  express 
word  of  Ananias  to  penitent  Saul,  "Arise  and  be  baptized  and 
wash  away  thy  sins.^'  Again,  are  we  justified  by  being  taken 
out  of  the  world  and  from  our  condemned  relationship  with  the 
old  Adam,  and  translated  into  God's  kingdom,  and  made  mem- 
bers of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  See  the  Baptismal  service 
every  where.  And  the  Catechism  :  "  in  Baptism  wherein  I  was 
made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven."  So  too  the  Homily ;  "  by  holy  pro- 
mises we  be  made  lively  members  of  Christ  when  we  profess  His 
religion,  receiving  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism."  1  B.  7.  And  as 
before,  "  Infants  being  baptized  ....  are  brought  into  God's 
favour,  made  His  children  and  inheritors  of  His  kingdom  in  Hea- 
ven." So  St.  Paul;  "'ye  are  all  children  of  God  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus,  for  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ  have  put  on  Christ ;"  and  again,  "  ye  are  washed,  ye  are 
sanctified,  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
by  the  Spirit  of  our  God  ;"  and  again,  "  By  one  Spirit  are  we 
all  baptized  into  one  Body."  Is  a  participation  of  the  merito- 
rious death  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  justification  .'*     See 


33 

the  Baptismal  Office,  where,  in  the  thanksgiving  for  the  grace  the 
person  has  just  received  in  the  Sacrament,  it  is  said,  "We  be- 
seech thee  to  grant  that  he  being  dead  unto  sin,  and  living  unto 
righteousness,  may  crucify  the  old  man,  and  utterly  abolish  the 
whole  body  of  sin."  So  also  the  Catechism  says,  "  the  inward 
grace  received  in  Holy  Baptism,  is  a  death  unto  sin  and  a  new 
birth  nnto  righteousness.'^  And  St.  Paul  :  "  Know  ye  not  that 
so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  ivere  baptized 
into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  Him,  by  bap- 
tism into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness 
of  life."  (Rom.  vi.  3,  4  ;  and  (in  verse  7,)  speaking  of  those  who 
are  thus  dead  unto  sin,  he  says,  "  for  he  that  is  dead  is  justified 
from  sin."  In  a  word,  is  justification  that  unspeakable  saving 
gift  of  God  which  is  bestowed  upon  us,  not  for  our  works  of  right- 
eousnes,  but  of  His  mercy  through  Christ  our  Lord  ?  Hear  then 
St.  Paul;  "Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done, 
but  according  to  His  mercy.  He  saved  us  by  the  luashing 
{hM-Kwitpov^  by  means  of  the  laver,  or  font)  of  regeneration,  and  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  that  being  justified  by  His 
grace  we  might  be  made  heirs  of  eternal  life." 
Dr.  Durbin  asks : 

"  How  could  you  dare  to  say  that  these  same  Fathers  [from  Origen  to  St.  Ber- 
nard] taught  the  '  Sacramental  system,' and  '  therefore  the  Homily  consistently 
recognizes  the  Sacraments  as  instrumental  means  of  justification  V  The 
Homily  says  they  taught  the  doctrine  of  '  Sacramental  justification.'  Both  can- 
not be  true." 

Both  are  true;  and  the  evidence  I  have  just  adduced  both  from 
our  Church's  standards  and  Holy  Scripture,  proves  it,  demon- 
strates it.  Was  not  St.  Paul  justified  by  faith  only  .5*  And  were 
not  his  sins  washed  away  by  baptism  ?  Were  not  the  converts 
on  the  great  feast  of  Pentecost  justified  by  faith  only  ?  And 
were  they  not  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost?  But  it  is  true  that  neither  St.  Paul  nor  St.  Peter, 
nor  the  Fathers  knew  any  thing  of  such  a  doctrine  as  that  taught 
by  the  Methodists;  of  which  Dr.  Durbin  rightly  judges  that  it 

*  i.  e.  our  Church  explains  the  formula,  «  only  for  the  sake  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  by  faith,  and  not  for  the  sake  of  our  own  works  or  merits." 


34 

cannot  be  true,  if  the  Sacraments  be  means  of  justification,  as 
I  have  shown  them  to  be.  And  accordingly  the  Methodists 
never  hear  their  religious  teachers  announce  the  doctrine  and 
gospel  of  the  Apostles.  Did  a  Methodist  ever  exhort  any- 
body to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  his  sins  and  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Never  !  Did  a  Methodist  ever  de- 
liver such  a  message  as  that  of  Ananias  to  Saul,  "be  baptized 
and  wash  away  thy  sins  ?"  Never  !  such  doctrine  never  escapes 
their  lips.  Their  teachers  are  not  able  to  enunciate  such  truth, 
for  if  they  did  it  would  overthrow  their  whole  system.  They 
have  a  mode  of  proceeding  totally  different,  one  too  unknown  to 
the  Apostles,  to  the  Fathers,  and  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  They 
ask  the  astounding  question,  "  Have  you  experienced  the  pardon 
of  sin  !"  And  they  thus  make  \\\%\\  feeling,  that  which  is  their 
own,  take  the  place  of  the  Holy  Sacraments  which  our  Lord 
has  made  the  Avitnesses  and  seals  and  pledges  of  the  grace  He 
bestows.  Was  a  Methodist  ever  told  that  the  reason  why  he 
should  not  sin  is,  that  by  his  baptism  he  was  baptized  into 
Christ's  death  ?  Never  !  such  awful  conclusions  from  the  won- 
derful mystery  of  Holy  Baptism  as  are  to  be  seen  in  the  sixth 
chapter  of  Romans,  are  never  heard  from  a  Methodist  pulpit, 
nor  seen  written  in  their  books.  The  Lutheran  dogma  of  jus- 
tification virtually  blots  out  from  their  Bibles  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostles,  and  veils  from  their  eye-sight  the  teaching  inspired  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.     "  He  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear  !" 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  a  participation  of  such  unspeakable 
grace  as  the  Church  teaches  is  conveyed  by  Sacraments,  will 
ipso  facto  save  a  man.  Minds  filled  with  Lutheran  and  Calvin- 
istic  notions  are  accustomed  to  draw  this  conclusion  ;  but  this  only 
shows  their  inability,  while  their  minds  are  thus  sophisticated,  to 
apprehend  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  They  take  one  premiss 
from  the  Catholic  system,  and  the  other  from  their  own  ;  and  the 
monstrous  hybrid  offspring  of  such  an  argument,  they  try  to  father 
on  the  Church.  Nevertheless,  our  doctrine  is  most  simple,  and 
adapted  to  the  minds  of  little  children  ;  but  at  the  same  time  the 
capacity  of  a  Newton  may  fail  to  apprehend  it.  It  is  a  law  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  that  its  mysteries  are  hid  from  the  wise 
and  prudent,  and  revealed  unto  babes.    "  Even  so  Father  !  for  so 


35 

it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight."  The  parables  of  our  Lord  illus- 
trate the  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.  The  soul  of  each 
child  of  Adam  on  passing  from  the  world  into  thp  Communion 
of  Saints  is  a  well  filled  and  lighted  lamp,  which  it  is  his  glorious 
calling  to  keep  filled,  and  trimmed,  and  burning,  till  the  Bride- 
groom's coming.  And  this  can  he  do,  and  will  he  do,  if  he  be 
''  wise,"  But  if  he  be  "  foohsh"  and  improve  not  his  privileges 
in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  so  suffer  his  lamp  to  go  out,  the 
glorious  coming  of  the  Bridegroom  will  bring  him  nothing  but 
woe.  He  will  not  only  lose  all  he  had,  but  besides  that  he  will 
be  punished  for  losing  it.  The  gift  of  Holy  Baptism  thus  be- 
comes the  basis  of  all  the  Christian's  responsibilities.  Their 
foundation  is  Grace.  The  Jew  could  look  no  farther  than  the 
Law,  for  the  ground  of  moral  obligation  ;  nor  the  heathen  beyond 
the  law  of  nature.  But  St.  Paul  says  to  those  "  baptized  into 
Christ,"  "Ye  are  not  under  the  Law,  but  under  grace  ;"  "yield 
yourselves  unto  God,  as  those  that  are  alive  from  the  dead,  and 
your  members  as  instruments  of  righteousness  unto  God."  Work 
out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling,  for  it  is  God 
who  worketh  in  you  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good  pleasure  ;  and 
again,  "  in  Baptism  ivherein  we  are  risen  with  Him  ...  if  ye 
then  be  risen  with  Christ — seek  those  things  which  are  above." 
The  harmony  between  the  facts  that  we  are  justified  by  faith 
only  and  at  the  same  time  by  the  grace  given  in  Sacraments, 
(because  the  grace  thus  given  is  the  reward  vouchsafed  to  faith) 
it  is  to  be  hoped,  may  now  be  distinctly  seen.  And  therefore,  I 
shall  bring  the  discussion  of  this  matter  to  a  close,  with  an  illus- 
tration afforded  by  the  Gospels.  I  refer  to  the  case  of  the  woman 
who  was  cured  of  an  issue  of  blood  by  touching  the  border  of 
our  Lord's  garment.  "  Jesus  said,  somebody  hath  touched  me, 
for  I  perceive  that  virtue  is  gone  out  of  me."  .  .  .  And  He  said 
to  the  woman,  "  Daughter,  be  of  good  comfort,  thy  faith  hath 
made  thee  whole."  Now  I  put  the  question  to  those  who  say 
that  "  we  cannot  be  justified  or  saved  by  faith  only,  and  by  the 
Sacraments  also  ;"  was  it  the  "  virtue"  which  flowed  out  of  our 
Lord's  Person  through  the  border  of  His  garment,  or  was  it  the 
woman's  faith,  that  made  her  whole  ?  Is  one  opposed  to  the 
other  ?     Are  not  both  true .''     Assuredly  they  are.     So  also  is  it 


36 

in  the  salvation  of  man.  The  Person  of  our  Lord,  God  and  Man, 
is  the  source  of  that  Ufe  and  grace  which  regenerates,  renews, 
justifies,  and  sanctifies  us ;  and  which  at  the  last  day  will  quicken 
our  mortal  bodies  into  life  again,  and  make  them  like  His  own 
glorious  Body.  "  His  life  is  the  well-spring  and  cause  of  ours." 
"  He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life."  The  living  branches  of  the 
True  Vine  partake  of  its  sap  and  verdure ;  the  members  of  His 
Body  share  in  His  fulness.  "  In  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead  bodily,  and  ye  are  complete  (jtsmripufiivov  made  full) 
in  Him  who  is  the  Head,  buried  with  Him  in  Baptism,  wherein 
also  ye  are  risen  with  Him,  through  the  faith  of  God's  operation." 
The  Sacraments  instituted  by  Himself  are  to  us,  what  His  garment 
was  to  the  woman.  He  is  hid  in  them.  They  are  the  means  and 
channels  through  which  His  life-giving  grace  flows  into  us  ;  and 
faith  as  with  the  woman,  is  that  which  makes  man  susceptible  of 
this  grace,  the  subjective  means  of  partaking  of  it,  as  the  Sacra- 
ments are  the  objective  means  of  conveying  it.  Or  in  the  words 
of  the  great  Hooker,  "  that  saving  grace  which  Christ  originally 
is  or  hath  for  His  people,  by  Sacraments  He  severally  deriveth 
into  every  member  thereof  Sacraments  serve  as  the  instruments 
of  God  to  that]end  and  purpose."  ....  "  We  receive  Christ  Jesus 
in  Baptism  once  as  the  first  beginner,  in  the  Eucharist  often 
being  by  continual  degrees  the  finisher  of  our  life." 

I  wish  that  I  might  here  take  leave  of  this  subject.  It  is  ex- 
ceedingly irksome  to  be  obliged  again  to  go  over  the  ground 
which  I  occupied  in  my  Letter  to  Dr.  Durbin,  in  order  to  prove 
that  Methodism  is  at  utter  variance  with  the  Church  on  this 
fundamental  point ;  which,  as  I  am  happy  to  acknowledge,  he 
agrees  with  me  in  saying,  decides  every  thing  in  controversy.  I 
thought  I  had  brought  the  matter  to  the  crucial  test,  when  I  cited 
our  Article  "  Of  sin  after  Baptism"  as  having  been  entitled  by 
the  Methodists,  (in  order  to  make  it  suit  their  religion)  "  Of 
Sin  after  Justification."  And  here  a  theologian  would  have 
seen  that  the  question  was  settled  by  the  documentary  evidence 
furnished  by  the  Methodists  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  our  Church 
on  the  other.  What  are  the  words  of  that  Article  ?  As  Dr. 
Durbin  is  fond  of  seeing  our  respective  Articles  printed  side  by 
side,  I  may  as  well  gratify  him  here. 


37 


OF    SIX    AFTER    BAPTISM. 

Not  every  deadly  sin  (^Non  omne 
pcccatum  mortale)  willingly  committed 
after  Baptism,  is  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  unpardonable.  Wherefore 
the  grant  of  repentance  is  not  to  be 
denied  to  such  as  fall  into  sin  after 
Baptism.  After  we  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  we  may  depart  from  grace  given, 
and  fall  into  sin,  and  by  the  grace  of  God 
(we  may)  arise  again  and  amend  our 
lives.  And  therefore  they  are  to  be 
condemned,  which  say,  they  can  no 
more  sin  as  long  as  they  live  here,  or 
deny  the  place  of  forgiveness  to  such 
as  truly  repent. 


OF    SIN    AFTER    JUSTIFICATIOX. 

>iot  every  sin  willingly  committed 
after  Justification  is  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  unpardonable.  Where- 
fore the  grant  of  repentance  is  not  to  be 
denied  to  such  as  fall  info  sin  after 
Justification  ;  after  we  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost,  we  may  depart  from  grace 
given  and  fall  into  sin,  and  by  the  grace 
of  God  rise  again  and  amend  our  lives. 
And  therefore  they  are  to  be  condemned 
who  say  they  can  no  more  sin  as  long 
as  they  live  here  ;  or  deny  the  place  of 
forgiveness  to  such  as  truly  repent. 


The  variations  in  the  text  of  the  Methodist  Article,  other  than 
the  change  of  the  word  "Baptism"  to  "Justification,"  however 
significant,  do  not  interfere  with  the  argument  I  deduce  from 
its  title.  It  is  plain,  that  language  which  our  Church  adopts 
in  respect  to  Baptism,  the  Methodists  cannot  use  without 
applying  it  to  their  doctrine  of  justification ;  thus  denying  for 
themselves,  that  justification  is  the  grace  of  Baptism,  and  assert- 
ing that  the  Church  teaches,  that  it  is  the  same.  Very  consistently 
does  Dr.  Durbin  assert,  that  these  are  "  two  totally  distinct  points, 
and  so  expressly  declared  in  the  titles  of  the  two  Articles."  But 
who  made  them  distinct  ?  That  is  the  question.  That  they  are 
distinct  in  his  system,  was  the  fact  that  I  cited  the  Articles  to 
prove ;  and  that  very  distinction  shows  the  opposition  that 
exists  between  Methodism  and  the  Church  on  this  fundamental 
point.  And  yet  he  strangely  says,  after  many  words  of  no 
importance,  about  my  not  meeting  the  question  "directly  and 
frankly,"  "subterfuge  and  vacillation,"  "false  issues,"  (!)  "adroit 
substitutions,"  and  the  like  : 

"  All  that  j'ou  have  said,  therefore,  of  the  inconsistency  of  Methodism  touching 
the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  falls  to  the  ground  ;  for  it  is  predicated  of  our  Article  Of 
Sin  after  Justification,  and  not  of  our  Article  Of  Baptism  nor  of  our  baptismal 
service,  both  of  which  are  taken  from  the  Church  of  England.  But  the  whole 
of  these  injurious  blunders  arise  from" 

Dr.  Durbin's  own  brain.   As  to  what  he  says,  of  my  not  taking 
into  view  his  baptismal  service,  I  beg  to  refer,  in  contradicting  his 

4 


38 

assertion,  to  pp.  16,  17,  18,  of  my  Letter,  where  I  pointed  out 
and  proved  from  his  baptismal  service,  its  doctrinal  variation 
from  our  own.  And  as  to  his  article  Of  Baptism,  I  did  not  refer 
to  that,  simply  because  I  thought  that  after  a  point  was  once 
proved,  nothing  more  need  be  said  about  it.  It  seems  however, 
that  I  set  too  high  an  estimate  upon  his  theological  discernment, 
and  therefore  to  accommodate  him,  I  suppose  I  must,  even  at  the 
risk  of  taxing  the  reader's  patience,  refer  to  his  Article  of  Baptism. 
But  let  us  first  fix  our  eyes  upon  the  point  whence  the  broad 
line  of  division  is  here  drawn,  that  so  we  may  follow  it  up  con- 
tinuously. On  reference  to  the  Article  Of  Sin  after  Baptism, 
quoted  above,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  distinctly  recognizes  the 
doctrine  of  spiritual  regeneration,  and  of  justification,  in  Baptism. 
Its  words  are,  "  after  we  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  we  may 
depart  from  grace  given,  and  fall  into  sin;"  this  being  equiva- 
lent to  saying,  that  "  after  Baptism  we  may  depart  from  grace 
given,"  &c.  It  is  this  doctrine  of  Regeneration  which  the 
Methodists  do  not  hold  ;  and  as  it  is  this  which  makes  the  great 
difference  between  sins  before,  and  sins  after  Baptism,  the 
Methodists  do  not,  and  while  they  are  Methodists  they  cannot 
recognize  any  difierence  between  such  sins ;  nor  correspondingly, 
any  difference  between  works  performed  before,  and  after  Bap- 
tism.* The  Methodist  Article  of  Baptism  will  show  the  same  doc- 
trinal variation  ;  that  is,  that  they  do  not  agree  with  the  Church 
as  to  what  that  Sacrament  is,  and  of  what  it  is  the  means. 

THE    METHODIST    ARTICLE.       OF    BAPTISM. 

Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profes- 


ART.  XXVII.       OF    BAPTISM. 

Baptism  is  not  only  a  sign  of  profes- 
sion, and  mark  of  difference  whereby 
Christian  men  are  discerned  from  others 
that  be  not  christened,  but  is  also  a  sign 
of  Regeneration  or  New  Birth,  whereby 
as  by  an  instrument,  they  that  receive 
Baptism  rightly  are  grafted  into   the 


sion  and  mark  of  difference  whereby 
Christians  are  distinguished  from  others 
that  are  not  baptized  ;  but  it  is  also  a 
sign  of  regeneration  or  new  birth.  The 
Baptism  of  young  children  is  to  be  re- 
tained in  the  Church. 


*  For  the  Church's  doctrine  of  the  efficacy  of  Christian  works,  the  Xlth  Homily 
of  the  second  Book,  entitled.  Of  jlhns-Decds,  may  be  advantageously  consulted. 
The  doctrine  there  stated  at  length  is  very  different  from  what  is  now  commonly 
received  ;  but  as  this  is  a  point  which  does  not  enter  into  my  present  subject  I 
pass  it  by.  It  should  be  remembered  that  Bp.  Jewell  had  a  great  hand  in  setting 
forth  the  2nd  Book  of  Homilies,  which  the  Articles  also  seem  to  prefer  to  the 
first  Book. 


39 


Church;  the  promises  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be 
Sons  of  God,  (in  filios  Dei,  among  the 
sons  of  God)  are  visibly  signed  and 
sealed ;  faith  is  confirmed,  and  grace 
increased  by  virtue  of  Prayer  unto  God. 
The  Baptism  of  young  children  is  in 
anywise  to  be  retained  in  the  Church  as 
most  agreeable  with  the  institution  of 
Christ. 

Let  the  reader  mark  the  spot  where  the  Methodists  have 
stopped  short,  m  trying  to  follow  our  Article  ;  it  is  at  the  very 
point  where  the  Church  goes  on  to  say  what  Baptism  is  the 
means  of.  And  this  omission  coincides  with  their  doctrine  that 
persons  are  admitted  into  the  Church,  not  by  Baptism,  as  the 
Apostles  taught,  but  by  "joining  class."  So  speaks  the  "Disci- 
pline :"  "  Let  none  be  received  mto  the  church,  until  they  are 
recommended  by  a  leader  with  whom  they  have  met  at  least 
six  months  on  trial,  and  have  been  baptized  ;"  &.c.  So  we  learn 
what  INIethodists  mean,  when  they  talk  so  loudly  about  the  Bible, 
as  their  "  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;"  they  intend  very  in- 
nocently to  say,  that  "they  follow  the  Book  of  Discipline  instead." 

A  comparison  of  the  Articles  on  the  all  important  doctrine  of 
Original  sin  (on  which  if  a  man  err,  he  errs  throughout  the 
whole  plan  of  salvation  by  Christ)  will  reveal  the  same  point  of 
departure  from  the  faith,  and  very  much  else  which  it  is  beside 
my  present  purpose  to  notice. 


ARTICLE    IX. 

Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  fol- 
lowing of  Adam,  (as  the  Pelagians  do 
vainly  talk;)  but  it  is  the  fault  and 
corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man 
that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  off- 
spring of  Adam,  whereby  man  is  very 
far  gone  from  original  righteousness, 
and  is  'of  his  own  nature  inclined  to 
evil,  so  that  the  flesh  lusteth  always 
contrary  to  the  spirit;  and  therefore, 
in  every  person  born  into  this  world 
it  deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damnation. 
And  this  infection  of  nature  doth  re- 
main, yea,  in  them  that  are  regenerated ; 
whereby  the  lust  of  the  flesh  called  in' 


METHODIST    ARTICLE. 

Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  fol- 
lowing of  Adam,  (as  the  Pelagians  do 
vainly  talk,)  but  it  is  the  corruption  of 
the  nature  of  every  man,  that  naturally 
is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam, 
whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from 
original  righteousness,  and  is  of  his 
own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  and  that 
continually. 


40 

Greek  ^p6vt;ixa  oapxoj  which  some  do 
expound  the  wisdom,  some  sensuality, 
some  the  affection,  some  the  desire  of 
the  flesh,  is  not  subject  to  the  Law  of 
God.  And  although  there  is  no  con- 
demnation for  them  that  believe  and  are 
baptized ;  yet  the  Apostle  doth  confess 
that  concupiscence  and  lust  hath  of  itself 
the  nature  of  sin. 

The  Church's  doctrine  of  regeneration  is  recognized  in  this  Arti- 
cle, as  indeed  it  must  always  be  where  the  doctrine  of  original  sin 
is  fully  stated.  But  the  Methodists  have  omitted  that  very  portion 
which  speaks  of  regeneration.  The  words,  "to  them  who  believe 
and  are  bapitzed,"  are  the  equivalents  to  these  from  the  Latin  ver- 
sion: "  renatiset  credentibus,^'  literally,  "  to  the  regenerated  and 
believers."  But  notwithstanding  all  this  documetary  evidence,  Dr. 
Durbin  has  the  extraordinary  boldness  to  assert,  that  the  doctrine 
of  Baptism  is  "  the  same  in  both  Churches  !"  His  proof  is  this, 
(and  let  the  reader  who  has  observed  the  difference  in  the  two 
Articles  of  Baptism,  mark  it ;)  "  Every  word  of  our  seventeenth 
Article  of  Baptism  being  taken  from  the  English  Article  of  Bap- 
tism." Is  not  this  rare  logic  ?  With  as  much  truth  might  he 
have  said,  that  the  Bible  and  the  Nicene  Symbol  both  teach  the 
Creed  of  the  Deist,  because  they  both  speak  of  "  One  God  the 
Father  Almighty."* 

*  The  following  amazing  words  are  found  on  p.  7  of  Dr.  Durbin's  Letter.  He  is 
speaking  of  his  "  Christian  Communion  of  more  than  a  million  of  members,"  and 
says  to  me,  it  "  derived  its  ordination  [see  Appendix  B.]  Articles  of  Religion,  and 
Sacramental  services  from  the  same  source  as  your  own  and  in  the  same  language. 
I  say  in  the  same  language,  notwithstanding  you  have  by  a  careful  collation,  found 
verbal  alterations  (?)  in  two  or  three  instances  (!)"  Again,  in  a  note  he  goes  on  in 
the  same  reckless  style  :  "The  differences  between  the  Articles  and  Services  which 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  taken  from  the  Church  of  England,  and 
those  of  the  Church  are  scarcely  greater  in  reality  than  the  differences  between 
those  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Church  of  England.  In  both 
cases  the  differences  have  mainly  arisen  from  circumstances,  the  occasional 
variation  in  the  meaning  of  words,  and  the  more  settled  sense  affixed  to  the 
same.  There  is  no  essential  difference  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  three 
churches  ;  examples  of  which" 

The  reader  has  seen  to  tell  a  story  very  different  from  that  which  Dr.  Durbin 
would  impose  upon  him.     And  here  is  somewhat  more : 

Besides  the  doctrinal  variations  in  the  Articles  which  have  been  noted  in  the  text, 


41 

III.  The  third  and  last  topic  before  me  is  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
I  proceed  then  to  establish,  not  by  a  reference  to  the  opinions  of 
individuals,  but  by  an  appeal  to  documentary  evidence,  as  I  have 
done  all  along,  the  fundamental  opposition  between  Methodism 

the  Methodists  have  stricken  out  bodily  the  following  doctrinal  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  to  wit,  the  3d,  Of  Christ's  descent  into  Hell.  8th,  Of  the  Creeds. 
15th,  Of  Christ  alone  without  sin,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  appears.  17th, 
Of  Predestination  and  Election,  wherein  the  school  of  Tillotsoii  and  Burnet 
would  be  glad  to  follow  them.  18th,  Of  obtaining  Eternal  Salvation  only  by  the 
name  of  Chtist,  which  bears  hard  upon  Methodists,  anathematizing  those  that 
"  presume  to  say  that  every  man  shall  be  saved  by  the  Law  or  Sect  which  he 
professeth."  23rd,  Of  ministering  in  the  Congregation  (ecclesia)  which  is  also  a 
condemnation  of  the  Methodists  and  of  Wesley's  mock  ordinations.  26th,  Of 
the  univorthiness  of  Ministers,  which  hinders  not  the  effect  of  the  Sacraments,  wherein 
was  scented  something  of  the  "  Opus  Operatum."  29th,  Of  the  wicked  which  eat  not 
the  Body  of  Christ  [in  the  use  of  the  Lord's  Slipper] :  the  words  in  brackets  are  not  in 
the  Latin  title.  In  addition  to  all  this  they  have  changed  the  title  and  first  words 
of  32d,  Of  the  marriage  of  Priests,  (Sacerdotum)  which  corresponds  with  their  re- 
jection of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice.  They  have  also  altered  the  title  of  the  34th, 
"  Of  the  traditions  of  the  Church,"  into  "  Rights  and  Ceremonies  of  Churches,"  and  the 
passage,  "  Whosoever  through  his  private  judgment,  willingly  and  purposely, 
doth  openly  break  the  traditions  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church,"  into  "  the  rites  and  cere- 
monies of  the  Church  to  which  he  belongs."  The  Church  of  England  knows  of 
butfone  Church,  "The  one  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,"  and  legitimate 
national  branches  of  the  same.  See  the  title-page  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
The  Methodists  consider  all  religious  worshipping  bodies.  Churches,  in  the  proper 
sense,  because  they  call  themselves  "  Churches."  Schism  is  a  sin  which  cannot 
coexist  with  their  vaunted  right  of  "  private  judgment."  It  is  nevertheless  de- 
nounced by  the  Apostles.* 

Now  all  these  repudiated  Articles  have  been  retained  by  the  Church  in  this 
country.  The  only  changes  made  in  the  English  Articles,  are,  1st,  the  striking  out 
the  name  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  from  Art.  8,  because  that  Creed  was,  to  our  un- 
speakable regret  thrown  out  of  the  Morning  Service,  on  account  of  its  damnatory 
clauses ;  and  that,  from  the  same  mistaken  tenderness  which  led  our  first  infor- 
mal Convention  to  publish  a  set  of  Articles  which  omitted  all  condemnation  of 
Roman  Errors  :  2d,  the  21st  Article  about  "  the  authority  of  General  councils," 
which,  because  of  its  local  and  civil  nature,  its  words  about  "  the  will  of 
Princes,"  it  would  have  been  improper  to  retain  in  this  country.  3rd,  We  made 
a  new  Article  "  of  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate,"  which  was  necessarj', 
inasmuch  as  we  had  nothing  to  do  with  "the  King's  Majesty."  This  new  Article 
omits  saying  anything  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Our  church  does  not  decide 
where  or  where  not  he  hath  jurisdiction. 

Our  Baptismal  Offices  are  identical  with  the  English,  but  the   Methodists 

*  See  Appendix  A. 

4* 


42 

and  the  Church  on  this  vital  point.  I  stated  in  my  Letter  that 
the  Methodists  rejected  those  two  characteristics  of  that  great 
Mystery,  which  the  Church  has  always  maintained,  viz. "  that  it  is 
an  oblation  to  God  the  Father  and  a  real  and  spiritual  commu- 
nication of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  to  worthy  receivers."  The 
first,  I  went  on  to  say,  "is  recognized  in  the  prayer  for  the  Church 
militant,  previous  to  which  the  Priest  is  directed  to  place  the  alms 
and  elements  on  the  Altar;  immediately  after  which  God  is  be- 
sought to  accept  the  alms  and  the  oblations  and  prayers."  Here- 
upon Dr.  Durbin  is  pleased  modestly  to  remark,  not  only  that  I 
have  totally  mistaken  my  own  Church's  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist; 
but  he  adds  further  on, 

"I  know  not  whether  to  suppose  your  want  of  discernment  or  to  doubt  your 
candour,  in  }'our  attempt  to  make  the  reader  of  your  Letter  believe  that  the  obla- 
tion of  the  elements  to  God  the  Father  is  found  in  the  prayer  for  the  Church 
militant.  There  is  not  one  word  in  that  prayer  to  countenance  it :  but  expressly  the 
contrary." 

As  I  am  not  in  the  least  concerned  about  his  thoughts  of 
my  discernment,  or  his  doubts  of  my  candour,  I  shall  pro- 
ceed at  once  to  establish  my  assertion  by  proof.  Even  Bur- 
net,* who  very  naturally  is  quite  a  favourite  with  Dr.  Durbin, 

have  essentially  altered  the  same,  as  I  have  elsewhere  shown.  Our  Liturgy 
of  the  Holy  Communion  varies  from  the  English  in  containing  a  fuller 
expression  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice ;  and  in  having  the 
ancient  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  Elements,  in  which  feature  it 
agrees  M'ith  the  Oriental  and  some  other  Liturgies,  and  differs  from  the  English 
and  Roman.  The  Methodist  "  Communion  Service  "  is  such  a  perfect  monster 
of  deformity,  that  I  need  say  nothing  else  about  it. 

Now  when  one  bears  all  these  things  in  mind,  and  hears  it  said  that  the  differ- 
ences between  the  Articles  and  Services  which  the  "  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church"  has  taken  from  the  Church  of  England,  and  those  of  the  Church,  are 
scarcely  greater  in  reality  than  the  differences  between  those  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  and  the  Church  of  England — one  is  seriously  led  to  inquire 
what,  in  the  eye  and  mind  of  Dr.  Durbin,  does  constitute  a  fact  ? 

*  The  Church  never  has  been  satisfied  with  Burnet's  Exposition  of  the  Ar- 
ticles. At  the  Convocation  of  1700  the  lower  house  thus  expressed  their  opin- 
ion of  it: 

"Whereas  a  book  hath  been  lately  published,  entitled,  'An  exposition  of  the 
XXXIX  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  by  Gilbert,  Lord  Bishop  of  Sarum,' 


43  ^ 

(as  is  also  the  heretic  VVhately)  with  all  his  latitudinarian  bias,  and 
his  low  lifeless  Arminianism,  might  have  told  him,  that,  besides 
the  propriety  of  the  Eucharist's  being  called  a  sacrifice  in  two 
senses  which  he  names,  "  in  two  other  respects  it  may  be  also  more 
strictly  called  a  sacrifice.  One  is  because  there  is  an  oblation 
of  bread  and  wine  nnade  in  itr  (And  in  the  English  Liturgy 
of  which  Burnet  is  speaking,  there  is  no  other  verbal  oblation 
but  that  in  the  prayer  for  the  Church.)  "  Another  respect  in  which 

which  the  author  declares  to  have  passed  the  perusal  of  both  the  Archbishops, 
and  several  Bishops  and  other  learned  divines,  and  suggests  their  approbation 
of  it;  and  whereas  we  think  it  our  duty  as  much  as  in  us  lies,  to  secure  the 
doctrines  contained  in  those  Articles,  from  any  attempts  that  may  be  made 
against  them,  we  most  humbly  offer  to  your  grace  and  your  Lordships  the  sense 
of  this  house,  which  is  as  follows  : 

1.  "That  the  said  book  tends  to  introduce  such  a  latitude  and  diversity  of 
opinions,  as  the  Articles  were  framed  to  avoid. 

2.  "That  there  are  many  passages  in  the  exposition  of  several  Articles  which 
appear  to  be  contrary  to  the  true  meaning  of  them,  and  to  other  received  doc 
trines  of  our  Church. 

3.  "That  there  are  some  things  in  the  said  book  which  seem  to  us  to  be  of 
dangerous  consequence  to  the  Church  of  England,  as  by  law  established,  and  to 
derogate  from  the  honour  of  its  reformation. 

"  All  of  which  particulars  we  humbly  lay  before  your  Lordships,  praying 
your  opinion  herein." — 

This  document  however,  of  course  was  not  acceptable  to  the  Bishops,  for  rea- 
sons,  which  every  one  acquainted  with  the  history  of  those  times  would  be  at  no 
loss  to  imagine.  See  Cardwell's  Synodalia,  p.  704. 

As  to  the  present  notorious  Archbishop  of  Dublin  (whose  name  on  several 
accounts  I  have  not  unreasonably  coupled  with  that  of  Burnet),  his  heresy  is 
known  as  widely  as  his  name.  In  the  Appendix  to  his  logic  he  has  distinctly 
taught  Sabellianism,  thus  considering  our  Blessed  Lord  little  else  than  an  ab- 
straction ;  and  in  his  sermons  this  heresy  appears  in  a  still  more  revolting  form. 
Thus  he  says  explicitly,  (pp.  51,  52)  "  We  differ  from  the  worshippers  of  a 
graven  image,  or  of  a  fire  in  this,  the  essential  circumstance,  that  their  worship  is 

unauthorized,  presumptuous,  and  vain,  while  ours  is  divinely  appointed 

But  the  kind  of  adoration  which  idolators  pay  to  their  images  so  far  corresponds  to 
tlie  Christians'  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  very  reasonably  and  intelligibly 
describe  Him  by  that  term."     See  British  Critic,  No.  64,  p.  396. 

Dr.  Durbin  and  others  may  rest  assured  that  writers  of  this  stamp  give  no 
"trouble"  whatever  to  the  Catholic-minded  members  of  the  Church,  beyond  the 
fact,  which  is  indeed  a  solemn  one,  that  they  mourn  over  a  church  which  is 
cursed  with  such  a  head. 


44 

the  Eucharist  is  called  a  sacrifice  is,  that  it  is  a  commemoration 

and  a  representation  to  God,  of  the  sacrifice  that  Christ  offered 

for  us  on  the  cross."     I  do  not,  however,  wish  to  refer  to  the 

authority  of  Bishop  Burnet,  on  this  or  any  other  doctrine : 

Non  tali  auxilio  nee  defensoribus  istis 
Tempus  eget. 

I  have  no  occasion  to  look  beyond  the  letter  of  our  Church's 
own  formularies.  In  the  first  place  then,  the  prayer  in  question, 
like  all  other  prayers  in  the  Liturgy  of  the  Holy  Communion,  is, 
in  accordance  with  unvarying  Catholic  usage,  addressed  distinctly 
and  intentionally  to  the  First  Person  in  the  adorable  Trinity ; 
consequently,  since  the  prayer  does  contain  an  oblation,  the  offer- 
ing is  made  to  God  the  Father.  Secondly,  as  to  what  the  word 
"  oblations"  refers  to,  I  asserted,  that  it  meant  the  sacramental 
elements  on  the  altar ;  and  in  proof  I  bring  the  fact  that  the  word 
"  oblations"  was  inserted  in  that  prayer,  in  addition  to  the  word 
"  alms,"  at  the  very  time  the  following  rubric  was  prefixed, "  ^nd 
the  Priest  shall  then  place  upon  the  table  so  much  Bread  and 
TVine  as  he  shall  think  sufficient.  Jifter  which  he  shall  say*  Let  us 
pray,"  &c.  Consequently,  the  intention  of  the  rubric  and  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  "  oblations"  are  apparent  each  from  the  other. 
Thirdly,  the  custom  of  the  Church  in  the  use  of  the  prayer,  goes  to 
establish  the  same.  When  the  offertory  is  used  without  a  commu- 
nion, (which  is  obligatory  every  Sunday  in  England, though  it  is 
discretionary  with  us)  the  passage  is  read  thus,  "  we  beseech  Thee 
most  mercifully  to  accept  these  our  alms,  and  receive  these  our 
prayers ;"  or,  if  it  should  so  happen  that  no  alms  are  collected  at  a 
communion,  it  is  read  "  accept  these  our  oblations  ;"  or  finally,  if 
the  prayer  is  used  without  the  offertory,  when  "  there  are  no  alms 
or  oblations,"  as  it  sometimes  is,  it  is  read,  "  We  beseech  thee  to 
receive  these  our  prayers." 

When  therefore  Dr.  Durbin  goes  on  to  say  : 

"  Now  leaving  out  the  words  '  to  accept  our  alms  and  oblations,  and'  when  there 
are  no  alms  or  other  devotions  of  the  people  to  be  offered  to  God,  the  elements 
alone  remain," 

he  is  imagining  a  case   which  never  exists.     The  word  "  ob- 
•  See  Wheatly  on  the  Common  Prayer,  ch.  6,  §  10,  III. 


45  ^ 

lations"  never  is  omitted  at  a  communion,  and  cannot  be  without 
a  violation  of  the  order  of  the  Church. 

The  "  devotions  of  the  people,"  refer  to  the  Minister's  dues  ; 
and  are  properly  coupled  with  the  alms— both  being  required  to 
be  collected  in  a  "  decent  basin."  They  are  all  one  with  the 
alms  except  as  to  their  object.  This  part  of  the  rubric  has  in- 
deed no  significance  in  the  Church  in  this  country,  but  was  once 
observed  in  England.     Wheatly  says  of  it : — 

« It  was  with  an  eye  I  suppose  to  this  difference  [that  is,  among  the  offertory 
sentences,  some  of  which  refer  to  the  poor,  and  some  to  the  minister  of  the  altar] 
that  in  the  last  review  there  was  a  distinction  made  in  the  rubric  that  follow 
these  sentences,  between  alms  for  the  poor  and  other  devotions  of  the  people.  In 
the  old  common  prayer  there  was  only  mention  made  of  the  latter  of  these,  as 
appears  from  its  being  ordered  to  be  put  into  the  poor  man's  box.  But  then  the 
clergy  were  included  in  other  words  which  ordered  that  upon  the  offering  days 
appointed  every  man  and  woman  should  pay  to  the  curate  the  due  and  accustomed  offer- 
ings. .  .  .  Now  indeed  whilst  they  have  a  stated  and  legal  income,  the  money 
collected  at  those  times  is  generally  appropriated  to  the  poor,  not  but  that  where 
the  stated  income  of  the  parish  is  not  sufficient  to  maintain  the  clergy,  they  have 

still  a  right  to  claim  their  share  in  these  offerings." 

I  asserted  also  that "  this  oblation  of  the  elements  was  repeated 
in  the  prayer  of  consecration ;"  to  this  it  is  replied,  "  there  is  no 
offering  of  the  elements  in  the  prayer  of  consecration  in  the  sense 
of  a  sacrifice  to  God  the  Father ;"  as  if  an  oblation  did  not  carry 
with  it,  necessarily,  the  "  sense  of  sacrifice."  This  blundering 
over  plain  English,  this  violence  done  to  language  whose  mean- 
ing is  fixed,  consecrated  by  immemorial  usage,  ought  certainly 
to  have  suggested  to  him  some  "  doubts"  rather  of  his  own  "dis- 
cernment and  candor"  than  mine.  But  no — he  goes  on  to  venture 
his  rash  criticisms  upon  the  prayer  of  consecration.  That  prayer 
begins  with  a  recital  of  the  facts,  of  the  "One  Oblation  once  offered 
on  the  Cross,"  and  of  "  the  institution  of  the  perpetual  memory  of 
that  sacrifice  until  His  coming  again."  Then  follows  the  conse- 
cration of  the  elements,  and  then  the  oblation,  named  as  such  in 
the  margin,  as  follows  : 

"  The  Oblation.  Wherefore  O  Lord  and  Heavenly  Father,  according  to  the  insti- 
tutions of  Thy  dearly  beloved  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  we,  Thy  humble  servants,  do 
celebrate  and  make  here  before  Thy  Divine  Majesty,  with  these  thy  holy  gifts,  which 
we  now  OFFER  unto  Thee,  the  memorial  Thy  Son  hath  commanded  us  to  make." 

In  copying  a  portion  of  this  passage.  Dr.  Durbin  inserted  in 


46 

brackets  after  the  word  "memorial,"  the  words,  "not  the  sacri- 
fice"— as  if  the  oblation  unto  God  the  Father,  of  His  holy  gifts 
were  not  the  sacrifice  commemorative  and  representative  to 
Him  of  the  One  Oblation  on  the  Cross ;  as  if  this  were  not 
the  Eiicharistic  Sacrifice.  No,  no,  Dr.  Durbin,  with  the  Liturgy 
before  him,  has  no  eyes  to  see  that  our  Church  makes  obla- 
tion {and  she  would  not  be  a  Church  if  she  did  not) ;  his 
acquaintance  with  the  English  language  and  the  English  Bible 
is  not  such  as  to  teach  him  that  "  oblation"  has  the  "  sense  of 
sacrifice  ;"  and  with  a  recklessness  which  amazes  one,  he  says 
I  have  totally  mistaken  the  doctrine  of  my  Church  on  the 
Eucharist  when  I  affirm  that  it  is  an  oblation  to  God  the  Father  ! 
But  something  more  startling  remains  to  be  told.  Because  I 
said — "  This  oblation,  which  gives  the  Eucharist  its  sacrificial 
character,  is  a  universal  rite  in  the  Catholic  Church," — he  tells 
me:  "Here  you  expressly  declare^'  (mark  the  words)  "that  you 
hold  the  same  vieivoi  the  sacrificial  character  of  the  Eucharist  that 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  holds."  Admirable  theologian  !  Will 
not  the  Protestant  Association  immediately  retain  him  as  their 
prosecuting  attorney,  after  this  manifestation  of  his  skill  in  fixing 
the  "  mark  of  the  beast"  in  my  forehead  ?  Because  I  say  the  ob- 
lation is  a  universal  rite  in  the  Catholic  Church,  therefore  I  hold  the 
same  view  of  that  rite  that  the  Roman  Catholic  holds  !  And  so,  I 
suppose,  because  I  say  that  Baptism  is  a  universal  rite  among  all 
professing  Christians  except  the  Quakers,  therefore  I  hold  the 
same  view  of  that  rite  with  Methodists  and  Mormons  too  !  Dr. 
Durbin's  logic  is  quite  as  peculiar  as  his  estimation  of  facts.  What 
he  means  by  the  Roman  Catholic  view,  he  has  elsewhere  told  us ; 
it  is,  that  "  each  good  [R.]  Catholic  understands  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass  to  be  a  real  repetition  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  for  men.*" 
That  I  have  said  one  word  any  where  or  at  any  time,  to  counte- 
nance such  a  doctrine,  is  utterly  untrue ;  and  just  as  untrue  is  his 
other  and  kindred  assertion  (p.  28),  that  I  "defended  an  oblation 
of  the  elements  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  as  the  Romish  Church 
teaches,-^  Dr.  Durbin  seems  to  have  been  hurt  that  any  one 
should  have  thought  him  capable  of  making  "  scandalous  misre- 
presentations" of  the  Oxford  divines;  but  I  do  not  know  what  more 

•  Durbin's  "Observations  in  Europe,"  Vol. i.  p.  72. 


47 

safety  they  or  any  one  might  hope  for  in  his  hands  than  I  have 
found.  He  has  here  done  worse  by  me  than  make  a  "scandalous 
misrepresentation."  I  earnestly  hope  it  may  be  true  that  he 
knows  nothing  of  the  subject  he  has  ventured  to  write  about  j 
that  he  is  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  the  words  he  has  used ;  for 
his  charge  against  me  is  nothing  less  than  what  1  would  not 
dare  to  say  except  in  defence  of  myself,  or  rather,  of  interests 
dearer  to  me  than  myself;  but  I  do  repeat,  it  is  a  palpable  untruth. 

It  is  a  sad  thing  that  I  should  be  obliged  to  proceed  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  and  to  speak  of  it  in  such  a  con- 
nection as  this.  It  is  almost  too  awful  a  subject  to  discuss  here: 
and  therefore  to  spare  myself  the  pah),  1  shall  endeavour,  as  far 
as  I  can,  to  confine  myself  to  the  words  of  the  Church,  in  teaching 
her  own  doctrine. 

But  some  attention  must  first  be  given  to  two  or  three  of  Dr. 
Durbin's  characteristic  assertions.  He  tells  me  that,  being  unable 
to  deny  that  our  communion  service  is  identical  with  his  own,  I 
"  endeavour  to  make  out  a  difference  by  noting  a  change  in  the 
Methodist  forms,  of  two  words,  and  the  omission  of  some  prayers 
after  the  sacrament  is  concluded,"  which  his  ministers  may  say 
or  not  as  they  choose.  A  formal  denial  of  this  '  identity'  I  never 
indeed  made,  because  there  was  no  occasion  for  me  to  deny  what 
I  thought  every  body  knew  was  not  so.  But  let  it  be  observed 
that  he  thus  implies  the  identity  of  the  two  services,  knowing  too 
at  the  same  time,  that  his  service  is  without  the  distinguishing 
features  of  the  Collect,  Epistle,  and  Gospel,  for  the  day ;  the 
creed,  the  offertory,  the  prayer  for  the  Church,  containing  the 
oblation  of  alms  and  bread  and  wine,  and  the  commemoration 
of  the  faithful  departed,  the  absolution,  the  Sursum  corda,  ("Lift 
up  your  hearts,")  the  proper  prefaces,  the  oblation  of  the  conse- 
crated elements  and  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon 
them — besides  other  parts  of  less  importance.  Identity  of  the 
services  indeed!  Did  any  body  but  he  ever  imagine  such  a 
thing,  much  less  assert  it  ?  Neither  did  I  say  one  word  about 
the  omission  of  any  prayers,  and  of  course  I  drew  no  conclusion 
from  such  omission.  He  seems  to  have  had  in  his  mind  what  I 
said  about  the  alterations  and  omissions  in  their  baptismal  service, 
viz.  that  they  left  out  the  addresses  and  prayers  which  asserted 


48 

that  the  person  baptized  "  is  regenerated," — "  regenerated  by 
the  Holy  Spirit."  This  was  part  of  my  evidence  that  the 
Methodists  had  rejected  our  doctrine  of  baptism  and  of  regenera- 
tion ;  and  this  evidence  he  was  pleased  so  far  to  overlook  as  to 
assert  (p.  21)  that  my  argument  in  proof  of  the  departure  of 
Methodists  from  this  fundamental  article  of  the  faith  was  not 
predicated  of  their  baptismal  service.  Thus  he  denies  that  I 
noticed  this  flagrant  fault  when  I  did  notice  it ;  and  he  asserts  that 
I  noted  the  omission  of  prayers  in  his  communion  service,  when 
I  did  no  such  thing.  I  was  concerned  with  the  doctrine  of  his 
communion  service,  and  not  with  its  difference  from  ours  in  other 
respects;  and  I  pointed  out  a  change  in  one  word  of  prime  im- 
portance, which  showed  the  fundamental  difference  between  us 
in  respect  of  doctrine ;  and  that  was  the  change  of  the  word 
"  body"  to  "  death"  in  the  prayer  "  Grant  us  therefore  gracious 
Lord  so  to  eat  the  flesh  of  Thy  dear  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  to 
drink  his  blood,  that  our  sinful  bodies  may  be  made  clean  by 
his  body,  and  our  souls  washed  through  his  most  precious  blood ;" 
in  which  words  both  the  benefits  of  the  atonement  and  the  life- 
giving  grace  of  our  Lord's  Body  are  each  asserted.  On  this  Dr. 
Durbin  remarks — 

"The  difference  is  in  the  use  of  the  word  body  by  you  and  death  by  us:  [to  be 
sure  it  is].  Now  I  appeal  to  the  reader  if  he  can  delect  any  difference  in  these 
words  as  used  in  the  service,  unless  he  first  assume  the  real  presence  of  the 
body  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  1" 

And  so  might  a  Socinian  appeal  from  the  formula  of  Baptism 
into  the  Name  of  the  Holy  Three,  to  his  reader,  and  ask,  if  the 
passage  taught  the  Triune  Essence  of  the  Godhead,  unless  the  Tri- 
nity was  first  assumed  ?  There  is  no  assumption  whatever.  The 
words  of  the  prayer  are  plain.  It  is  not  the  way  of  the  Church 
to  address  Almighty  God  in  the  language  of  the  rhetorician ;  and 
her  words  in  that  prayer  make  nonsense,  if  they  do  not  teach 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence.  They  do  assert  it,  and  the 
Methodists  knew  it,  and  therefore  they  altered  the  prayer  as  is 
thus  hesitatingly  confessed. 

"  We  with  the  genuine  Protestant  party  in  the  Church  disbelieve  the  real 
presence  of  His  Body  in  the  Sacrament  and  refer  the  ivhole  to  his  death,  and  therefore 
we  changed  the  word  to  cut  off  all  occasion  to  claim  the  authority  of  the  Church 
(i.  e.  of  the  'Discipline')  in  favour  of  the  real  presence." 

Exactly  so ;  and  now  I  shall  show  that  the  Church  does  make 


49 

a  difference  between  the  words  body  and  death  ;  and  does  not 
like  the  Methodists  refer  the  "  whole'^  to  his  death.  In  the  ex- 
hortation giving  notice  of  the  Holy  Communion  there  may  be 
read  as  follows ; 

"  Almighty  God  our  Heavenly  Father  hath  given  His  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ  not  only  to  die  for  us,  but  also  to  be  our  spiritual  food  and  sustenance  m 
that  Holy  Sacrament." 

The  testimony  of  the  Homilies  to  this  doctrine  is  as  explicit  as 

that  of  the  Liturgy.     In  the  advertisement  at  the  close  of  the  first 

book,  we  read  of  the  "due  receiving  of  His  blessed  Body  and 

Blood  under  the  form  of  Bread  and  Wine."     In  the  Homily  of 

the  Resurrection  it  is  said : — 

«  Thou  hast  received  Him  if  in  true  faith  and  repentance  of  heart  thou  has 
received  Him,  if  in  purpose  of  amendment  thou  hast  received  Him  for  an  ever- 
lasting pledge  and  gage  of  salvation.  Thou  hast  received  His  Body  which  was 
once  broken  and  His  Blood  which  was  once  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
Thou  hast  received  His  Body  to  have  within  thee  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  for  to  dwell  with  thee,  to  endow  thee  with  grace,  to  strengthen  thee 
against  thine  eniraies,  and  to  comfort  thee  with  their  presence.  Thou  hast  re- 
ceived His  Body  to  endow  thee  ivith  everlasting  righteousness,*  to  assure  thee  of  ever- 
lasting bliss,  and  life  of  thy  soul." 

In  the  Homily  "of  the  worthy  receiving  of  the  Sacrament"  we 
are  told, 

«  Thus  much  we  must  be  sure  to  hold,  that  in  the  supper  of  the  Lord  there  is  no 
vain  ceremony,  no  bare  sign,  no  untrue  figure  of  a  thing  absent :  But,  as  the 
Scripture  saith,  the  table  of  the  Lord,  the  bread  and  cup  of  the  Lord,  the  memory 
of  Christ,  the  annunciation  of  His  death,  yea,  the  communion  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  the  Lord  in  a  marvellous  incorporation  which,  by  the  co-operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  (the  very  bond  of  our  conjunction  with  Christ)  is  through  faith 
icrought  in  the  souls  of  the  faithful  whereby  not  only  their  souls  live  to  eternal 
life,*  but  they  surely  trust  to  win  their  bodies  a  resurrection  to  immortality.  The 
true  understanding  of  this  fruition  and  union  which  is  betwixt  the  Body  and  the 
Head,  the  true  believers  and  Christ,  the  ancient  Catholic  Fathers,f  both  per- 
ceiving themselves,  and  commending  to  their  people,  were  not  afraid  to  call  this 
supper,  some  of  them,  the  salve  of  immortality  and  sovereign  preservative  against 
death ;  other,  a  deifical  communion  ;  other,  the  sweet  dainties  of  our  Saviour, 
the  pledge  of  eternal  health,  the  defence  of  faith,  the  hope  of  the  resurrection." 

And  again  :  It  is  well  known  that  the  meat  we  seek  for  in  this  supper  is  spiritual 

•  The  intelligent  reader  will  here  perceive  the  gift  of  justification  through  the 
Sacrament  faithfully  received. 

f  Irenasus,  Ignatius,  Dionysius,  Origen,  Optatus  and  Cyprian  are  referred  to 
by  name. 


50 

food,  the  nourishment  of  our  soul,  a  heavenly  reflection  and  not  earthly ;  an  in- 
visible meat,  and  not  bodily;  a  ghostly  substance,  and  not  carnal,  so  that  to  think 
that  without  faith  we  may  enjoy  the  eating  and  drinking  thereof  or  that  that  is 
the  fruition  of  it,  is  but  to  dream  a  gross  and  carnal  feeding,  basely  objecting 
and  binding  ourselves  to  the  elements  and  creatures.  Whereas  by  the  advice  of 
the  Council  of  Nicene,  we  ought  to  lift  up  our  minds  by  faith,  and,  leaving  these 
inferior  and  earthly  things,  there  seek  it  where  the  sun  of  righteousness  ever 
shineth.  Take  then  this  lesson,  O  thou  that  are  desirous  of  this  table,  of  Emis- 
f:enus,  a  godly  father,  that  when  thou  goest  up  to  the  reverend  communion,  to 
be  satisfied  with  spiritual  meats,  thou  look  up  with  faith  upon  the  holy  Body 
and  Blood  of  thy  God,  thou  marvel  with  reverence,  thou  touch  it  with  the  mind, 
thou  receive  it  with  the  hand  of  thy  heart,  and  then  take  it  fully  with  thy  inward 
man." 

An  argument  has  been  drawn  sometimes,  and  lastly  by  the 
Bishop  of  Vermont,*  from  a  rubric  in  the  office  for  "  the  com- 
munion of  the  sick,"  in  order  to  show  that  the  Real  Presence  or 
"inward  grace"  is  not,  acording  to  the  judgment  of  our  Church, 
in  unity  with  the  consecrated  offering;  and  that  in  that  rubric 
may  be  seen  the  wide  difference  between  us  and  the  Church  of 
Rome.  I  cannot  but  express  my  astonishment,  at  such  a  con- 
clusion, in  spite  of  my  unfeigned  respect  for  the  abilities,  learning 
and  character,  of  those  who  maintain  it.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  teaches  t/ie  very  doctrine  of  that  Rubric, 
and  acts  upon  it  much  more  than  we  do  ourselves.  The  decree 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  is  this  : — 

"But  as  to  the  use,  our  fathers  have  rightly  and  wisely  pointed  out  three 
modes  of  receiving  this  Holy  Sacrament.  For  they  have  taught  that  some  partake 
of  it  only  sacramentally,  viz.  sinners ;  but  others  spiritually,  those  to  wit,  who 
with  hearty  desire,  eating  that  consecrated  heavenly  bread  by  a  living  faith 
which  worketh  by  love,  discern  its  fruit  and  benefit ;  lastly,  the  third  partake  at 
once  sacramentally  and  spiritually  .•  but  these  are  they  who  examine  and  prepare 
themselves  beforehand,  that,  clad  in  the  wedding  garment,  they  may,"f  «&c. 

It  is  on  the  ground  of  this  spiritual  communion  without  par- 

*  "  Novelties  which  disturb  our  peace,"  No.  3,  pp.  34,  35. 

f  Sess.  xiii.  c.  8.  Quoad  usum  autem,  recte  et  sapienter  patres  nostri  tres 
rationes  hoc  sanctum  sacramentum  accipiendi  distinxerunt.  Quosdam  enim 
docuerunt  sacramentaliter  duntaxat  id  sumere  ut  peccatores,  alios  autem  spiri- 
tualiter,  illos  nimirum,  qui,  voto  propositum  ilium  coelestem  panem  edentes,  fide 
viva,  quae  per  dilectionem  operatur,  fructum  ejus  et  utilitatem  sentiunt ;  tertios 
porro  sacramentaliter  simul  et  spiritualiter :  hi  autem  sunt,  qui  se  prius  pro- 
bant  et  instruunt,  ut  vestem  nuptialem  induti,  &c. 


51 

taking  of  the  consecrated  species,  that  Roman  Catholics  practise 
\vhat  our  writers  are  wont  to  consider  a  great  abuse,  viz.  that  of 
leaving  communion  very  much  to  the  Priest,  they  joining  with 
him,  mentally  and  spiritually.  This  spiritual  communion,  there- 
fore, surely  ought  to  be  the  very  last  thing  referred  to,  whereby  to 
point  out  the  difference  in  Doctrine  between  the  two  churches ; 
for  in  this  they  are  agreed^  whatever  else  may  be  said  in  other 
respects. 

But  to  return  to  the  Homilies  :  I  suppose  it  is  quite  superfluous 
to  ask  if  any  such  doctrine  as  that  which  they  deliver,  (which 
was  the  doctrine  of  our  Reformers)  is  ever  taught  by  Methodists  ? 
Different  as  it  is  undoubtedly  from  those  gross  conceptions  of  that 
Holy  Mystery  which  we  commonly  ascribe  to  Roman  Catholics,* 
and  which  transubstantiation,  and  the  view  of  the  Eucharistic 
Oblation  consequent  thereupon,  seem  to  make  necessary ;  it  is 
yet  more  different  from  the  low  and  freezing  view  which  Zwingle 
invented,  which  the  Methodists  have  inherited  from  him,  and 
which,  though  widely  differing  from  that  of  Luther,  is  still  the 
only  one  which  is  consistent  with  the  latter's  famous  doctrine  of 
justification.  Nevertheless  Dr.  Durbin,  who  in  his  own  way, 
has  a  wonderful  facility  in  getting  rid  of  difficulties  which  would 
baffle  and  appal  any  one  else,  asserts  of  his  own  great  efforts  at 

theological  discussion  : 

"  What  I  have  said  will  convince  you  that  the  doctrine  of  the  two  Churches 
[i.  e.  of  the  Methodists  and  the  Church]  is  identical.  It  now  remains  for  me  to 
show  what  this  doctrine  is,  and  that  you  do  not  hold  it ;  but  that  you  hold  sub- 
stantially the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament." 

Here  are  great  promises  and  grevious  accusations.  Let  us 
now  examine  the  means  adopted  to  fulfil  the  one  and  to  substan- 
tiate the  other.     He  goes  on  : 

"The  true  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  is  'an  outward  and  visible 
sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace.' — Catechism.  A  Sacrament  then  consisteth 
in  the  '  outward  sign'  and  the  thing  signified  which  is  '  the  inward  and  spiritual 
grace.'  These  are  two,  and  a  child  for  whom  the  Catechism  was  designed  can 
easily  distinguish  them." 

The  two  last  sentences  of  this  passage  are  very  good  and  very 
true;  but  let  the  reader  mark  the  first,  which  contains  what  pur- 

•  It  is  a  palpable  misrepresentation  of  the  Homilies,  when  persons  of  Zwingliaa 
views  quote  passages,  directed  specially  against  the  current  errors  of  their 
time,  as  if  they  were  written  against  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  Liturgy  and  Cate- 
chism. 


52 

ports  to  be  our  Church's  definition  of  a  Sacrament,  the  definition 
of  our  Catechism  ;  what  he  calls  the  "  true  Protestant  doctrine." 
Will  it  be  believed  by  those  persons  who  have  placed  confidence 
in  Dr.  Durbin's  statements,  "  the  leaders'  meeting"  to  wit,  and 
his  other  unenviable  abettors  and  "  flatterers,"  in  the  miserable 
work  to  which  he  has  lent  himself,  that  their  redoubteble  cham- 
pion, has,  in  his  quotation  from  our  Catechism,  suppressed  two- 
thirds  of  the  passage  he  pretends  to  cite,  and  that  passage  a 
DEFINITION !  Yes,  a  definition,  every  line  and  letter  of  which 
is  sacred,  sacred  from  its  nature  as  a  definition.  He  has  sup- 
pressed the  body  of  a  brief  doctrinal  definition,  in  order  that, 
in  his  hands,  our  teaching  may  appear  as  "  true  Protestant  doc- 
trine," and  so  square  with  Methodism.  He  has  suppressed  the 
doctrine  of  our  Church  in  order  to  make  it  out  to  his  ill-informed 
reader,  that  I  depart  from  her  teaching  and  hold  substantially  to 
that  of  Rome.  Among  all  the  "  tricks  of  modern  controversy" 
can  a  procedure  like  this  be  found  ?  Let  the  lover  of  justice  and 
truth,  he  only  whose  opinion  I  care  to  ask,  let  him  compare  the 
above  quotation  with  what  the  Catechism  does  say: 

Q.  "What  meanest  thou  by  this  word  Sacrament  V 

A.  "  I  mean  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace 
given  unto  us,  ordained  by  Christ  Himself,  as  a  means  whereby  we  receive  the  same, 
and  a  pledge  to  assure  us  thereof."* 

Here  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  suppressed  portion  of  the 
definition  contains  the  gist  of  the  whole  controversy,  which  is, 
not  as  to  what  either  Sacrament  may  signify,  but  what  they  are 
the  means  of  conveying.  The  definition  shows  that  the  outward 
sign  is  ordained  by  Christ  Himself,  as  a  means  whereby  we  re- 
ceive the  inward  grace  it  signifies  ;  to  wit,  that  water  in  the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism  is  the  means  whereby,  under  the  minis- 
tration of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  spiritually  receive  the  grace  of 
regeneration,  or,  "  a  death  unto  sin  and  a  new  birth  unto  right- 
eousness ;"  and  that  Bread  and  Wine  in  the  Eucharist  are  the 
means  whereby,  under  the  like  ministration  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
we  spiritually  receive  the  thing  signified,  viz.  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ. 

*  An  erroneous  punctuation  has  crept  into  some  editions  of  the  American 
Prayer  Book,  viz.  the  insertion  of  a  comma  between  the  words  '  grace'  and '  given.' 
The  punctuation  I  have  followed  is  the  standard  one,  as  may  be  seen  in  the 
editions  of  the  Oxford  University  Press. 


53 

Does  this  act  of  suppressing  the  gist  of  a  doctrinal  definition 
in  order  to  subserve  the  ends  Dr.  Durbin  proposed  to  himself  in 
his  discourses  and  in  his  Letter,  amount  to  a  "  scandalous  misre- 
presentation ?"    If  not,  I  know  not  what  does,  or  what  can.    And 
this  very  thing  did  he  do  in  his  first  discourse  ;  he  then,  in  like 
manner,  withheld  that  part  of  the   definition  which  gives  the 
differentia,  the  essential  characteristic  of  the  thing  defined  ;  and 
that  too,  in  order  to  exhibit  "  the  true  Protestant  doctrine,"  as 
being  that  of  our  Church  ;  and  by  contrast  to  show,  that  there 
was  a  large  body  of  our  divines  who  were  putting  forth  views  of 
the  Sacraments  not  warranted  by  the  Church,  but  directly  op- 
posed to  her  authoritative  teaching.  And  though  I  was  aware  of 
this  fact,  though  I  knew  that  some  had  thus  been  shamefully  led 
astray,  yet  could  I  not  bring  myself  to  notice  in  my  letter  to  him, 
so  flagrant  an  outrage.  It  seemed  to  me  to  be  altogether  too  serious 
a  matter,  involving  consequences  too  momentous  to  his  reputa- 
tion, for  me  even  to  allude  to  it  in  print,  without  the  evidence  of 
it  in   the   author's  own   hand.      I   should   have  shrunk  from 
speaking  of  it,  even  if  I  had  heard  it  myself.     But  he  has  now 
published  it  to  the  world,  and  its  fearful  consequences  he  must 
bear,  without  reproaching  any  one  but  himself. 

And  now  with  these  facts  before  him  let  the  reader  contem- 
plate the  innocent  simplicity,  the  guilelessness  of  the  following 
paragraph  : 

"  Had  you  not  been  of  the  '  straitest  sect  of  the  Pharisees,'  which  made  you 
say  in  your  Letter,  '  I  of  course  was  not  present  when  you  delivered  the  afore- 
said discourse,'  I  am  sure  you  would  have  testified  also  to  the  delicacy  and 
candor  ( !  )  with  which  I  treated  all  persons  and  parties,  your  '  ignorant'  in- 
formant notwithstanding — ignorant  she*  must  be  or  she  could  not  have  been 
*  scandalized'  by  my  manifest '  misrepresentations.'  " 


Having  already  far  exceeded  the  limits  that  I  proposed  to  my- 
self, I  am  forced  to  bring  my  remarks  to  an  abrupt  conclusion.  The 
importance  of  the  subjects  discussed,  has  tempted  me  to  a  greater 
length  than  I  should  otherwise  have  gone.  I  wished  this  review 
also  to  possess  an  interest  beyond  that  which  local  circumstances 

*  I  know  not  what  to  make  of  this  indelicate,  unmanly  allusion.  Dr.  Durbin 
is  informed  that  no  such  person  as  he  imagines,  gave  me  any  accounts  of  his 
sayings  and  doings.  I  have  the  testimony  of  his  own  friends  to  the  truth  of  what 
I  have  asserted. 

5* 


54 

may  give  it.  I  had  other  aims,  than  the  exposure  of  Dr.  Durbin. 
I  have  endeavoured  so  to  exhibit  the  doctrine  to  which  I  have 
vowed  submission,  as  to  remove  misapprehensions,  to  assist  per- 
sons in  difficulty,  and  to  reheve  those  minds  from  doubt  and 
alarm,  who  are  anxious  to  abide  by  the  teaching  of  "  the  Church 
of  the  Living  God,  which  is  the  pillar  and  stay  of  the  truth.'' 
That  teaching  is  embodied  in  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer ;  it  is 
Catholic,  it  is  Apostolic,  coeval  with  the  Church  of  Christ.  We 
received  it  not  from  the  private  judgment  of  any  man,  for  we  are 
not  followers  of  men.  It  came  to  us  by  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  things  which  the  Apostles  committed  to  their  suc- 
cessors, to  be  handed  over  to  other  faithful  men,  who  might  be 
able  to  teach  others  also  (2  Tim.  ii.  2),  have  come  down  to  us  ; 
they  are  guaranteed  to  us  by  the  unfailing  word  of  Him  who 
promised  to  be  with  His  Apostles  every  day  until  the  consum- 
mation of  the  world.  Even  "if  we  believe  not,  yet  He  abideth 
faithful ;  He  cannot  deny  himself."  "  The  gates  of  Hell  never 
can  prevail  against  His  Church."  They  may  attack  her,  they 
may  for  a  time  be  reared  in  her  midst ;  and  so  may  painfully 
engross  the  vision  of  many  that  are  endeavouring  to  set  their 
eyes  towards  Heaven.  But  these  evils  will  have  an  end ;  they 
are  fast  coming  to  an  end.  The  bow  of  hope  is  already  cast 
upon  the  clouds  that  have  been  afflicting  us  with  storms.  Su?-- 
sum  Corda  !  "  The  Lord  is  not  slack  concerning  his  promise  as 
some  men  count  slackness,"  and  we  may  therefore  wait  with 
patience  and  with  confidence,  the  fulfilment  of  His  word.  On 
this  rock  we  rest.  We  know  that  we  are  in  His  Church,  and  so 
partake  of  His  Life  and  fulness,  because  she  is  His  Body.  We 
know  that  we  are  in  His  Church,  enjoying  unrestrained  access 
to  His  Holy  Word;  and  therefore  will  humble  minds  within  her 
obtain  a  certain  knowledge  of  His  truth,  because  she  is  "the 
pillar  and  stay  of  the  truth,"  the  "temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
who  is  the  Guide  to  all  truth.  Within  her  pale  the  light  of 
Heaven  illumines  the  all-sufficient  record  of  our  Lord's  life  and 
labours.  His  Divine  discourse,  and  the  teaching  of  His  Apostles; 
and  there  "  sitting  at  His  feet"  we  are  "  taught  by  Him,"  and 
learn  from  the  living  letter  of  His  Word,  "  the  truth  as  it  is 
in  Jesus."     "  Heaven  and  Earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words 

SHALL  NOT  PASS  AWAY." 


APPENDIX. 


THE    RIGHT   OF    PRIVATE    JUDGMENT. 

The  following  remarks  on  this  much  controverted  topic  could  not  be  intro- 
duced into  the  foregoing  Review  without  too  great  an  interference  with  the 
main  subject.  They  are,  therefore,  thrown  together  here,  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  thoughtful.* 

In  Morals,  right  is  the  correlative  to  ought  and  duty.  We  have  a  right  to 
do  what  we  ought  to  do  ;  a  right  to  do  only  what  is  right.  We  have  no  right 
to  disobey  God  ;  but  we  have  the  liberty ;  and  if  we  do  so  it  is  at  our  own 
peril.  Consequently,  as  every  man  who  can,  ought  to  learn  the  Christian 
faith,  so  it  is  his  right  to  do  so.  In  this  sense  the  right  of  individual  judg- 
ment is  not  opposed  to  Church  authority ;  for  the  Church  guarantees  the 
right,  nor  only  so,  but  helps  the  individual  to  exercise  it.  Again,  God  has 
appointed  certain  means  whereby  we  may  learn  His  truth ;  and  as  every  man 
ought  to  make  use  of  all  those  means,  so  he  has  no  right  to  neglect  any  one 
of  them.  Now,  as  we  learn  from  St.  Paul,  God  has  set  up  an  institution 
which  is  the  "  Pillar  and  Ground  of  the  Truth,"  "  the  Church  of  the  livino- 
God,"  and  man  has,  can  have,  no  right  to  turn  away  his  eyes  from  the  es- 
tablished stay  of  the  truth.  But  he  has  the  liberty  to  do  so,  and  if  he  choose 
to  act  thus,  heresy  is  the  inevitable  consequence,  sooner  or  later. 

The  constant  profession  of  any  doctrine  by  the  whole  Church  from  the 
beginning,  thus  becomes  an  infallible  proof  of  the  truth  of  that  doctrine.  It 
is  a  proof  that  we  are  bound  to  seek  after,  and  which  we  have  no  right  to 
forego.  The  belief  of  truth  susceptible  of  such  proof,  is  a  condition  of  re- 
maining in  the  favour  of  God.  "  Let  that  therefore  abide  in  you  which  ye 
have  heard  from  the  beginning;  if  that  which  ye  have  heard  from  the  begin- 
ning abide  in  you,  ye  also  shall  continue  in  the  Father  and  the  Son."  (1  .Tohn 
ii.  24.) 

The  present  teaching  of  any  sect,  or  any  portion  of  the  Church  is,  to 
persons  under  that  teaching,  privia  facie  evidence,  that  it  has  been  heard 
from  the  beginning.  But  if,  after  acting  upon  it  with  a  good  conscience,  one 
find  that  without  any  fault  on  his  part,  it  fails  in  carrying  him  on  to  fulfil  the 
law  of  Christ ;  he  may  be  assured  that  there  is  something  wrong  in  his  creed. 

*  The  July  No.  of  the  True  Catholic  has  an  article  on  Private  Judgment,  con- 
taining thoughts  similar  to  some  here  expressed.  I  feel  it  due  to  myself  to  say, 
that  what  is  here  offered,  was  written  before  I  saw  the  last  number  of  that  ad- 
mirable publication. 


56 

Here  then  there  is  good  reason  for  "  examining  himself,"  to  see  "  whether 
he  be  in  the  faith,"  whether  he  believes  anything  which  has  not,  or  believes 
not  anything  which  has,  been  heard  from  the  beginning.  And  so  far  as  he 
may  thus  correct  his  individual  faith,  he  will  do  so  by  exercising  his  private 
judgment,  that  is,  by  deferring  to  evidence, by  appealing  from  the  local  teaching 
which  he  has  hitherto  followed,  to  Catholicity.  Of  course  he  will  be  bound  to 
make  a  diligent  use  of  the  New  Testament,  in  prosecuting  so  momentous  an 
inquiry,  in  order  that  he  may  see  wherein  the  said  teaching  contradicts  that 
holy  volume.  But  here  he  is  met  by  the  difficulty,  that  all  heresies  have 
their  proof  texts,  all  systems  profess  to  be  derived  from  the  Bible.  Let  him 
then  carefully  inquire  whether  the  system  in  which  he  has  been  trained  adopts, 
or  is  able  to  adopt,  all  the  doctrinal  statements  of  the  New  Testament ;  for 
they  are  all  constituent  portions  of  one  integral  body  of  divine  truth.  If  it 
do  not,  it  is  fundamentally  wrong  ;  it  rejects  those  portions  which  it  does  not 
use  ;  it  would  not  reject  them  if  it  could  use  them.  To  take  an  example 
already  used  (p.  34),  if  that  system  does  not  announce  in  its  regular  ordinary 
teaching,  that  Baptism  is  "  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  (Acts  ii.  38)  ;  that 
by  Baptism  we  are  "  baptized  into  Christ's  death,"  (Rom.  vi.  2,)  and  "  put 
on  Christ,"  (Gal.  iii.  27,)  and  that  in  Baptism  "  we  are  risen  with  Him," 
(Col.  ii.  12) — it  is  not  simply  erroneous  or  defective  ;  it  is  heterogeneous 
to  the  New  Testament ;   it  is  rotten  at  the  core,  and  cannot  be  reformed. 

This  is,  or  should  be,  the  first  step  in  bringing  any  teaching  to  the  in- 
fallible test  of  Catholicity  ;   and  in  most  instances  this  one  will  be  found 
sufficient  to  detect  error.  The  inspired  writings  show  what  was  the  Church's 
teaching  at  the  beginning,  and  of  course  they  must  be  used  to  know  what 
has  been  taught  always.    The  authentic  records  of  the  Church  from  that  time 
forwards,  her  liturgies  and  canons,  the  writings  of  her  doctors  and  apologists, 
and  the  lives  of  the  saints,  which  are  the  distinctive  fruits  of  her  faith — form 
all  together  an  overwhelming  testimony  to  the  exactness  and  integrity  of  her 
Creed ;   an  unimpeachable  witness  to  one  harmonious  body  of  truth,  and 
one  way  of  salvation,  as  having  been  authoritatively  taught  by  the  Church 
"  always  and  everywhere."     The  faith  of  the  Church  is  a  fact  in  history, 
as  easily  identified    at  any  given  time,  as  her  own  existence,  and  much 
more  easily  than  many  facts  which  it  would  be  thought  the  extremest  folly 
to  disbelieve.     Here  then  is  the  second  test  which  is  to  be  applied  to  any 
teaching  that  challenges  our  acceptance,  a  test  to  which  scripture  points  us, 
as  has  been  shown  ;   and  one  by  which  the  Apostles  themselves  would  have 
their  own  later  teaching  tried,  by  those  who  heard  them.     "  \iwe,  or  an  angel 
from  Heaven,"  says  St.  Paul, "  preach  unto  you  any  other  Gospel  than  that  we 
have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed."     To  try  any  doctrines  by  these 
tests  is  surely  to  exercise  the  private  judgment,  to  act  upon  the  most  fearful 
individual  responsibility  ;  and  yet  in  doing  so  one  would  not  sit  in  judgment 
upon  the  Catholic   Church,  for  all  this  is  but  a  preliminary  step  to  dutiful 
submission  to  the  faith.      Such  an  inquiry  would  proceed  upon  the  assump- 
tion, that  there  is  such  a  body  of  truth  as  the  Catholic  faith,  and  every  step 
in  it  is  an  act  of  obedience.    There  would  be  no  aim  at  making   private 


57 

interpretations  of  scripture,  but  on  the  contrary  a  search  after  that  which  from 
the  beginning  has  been  common  to  the  whole  Church. 

There  is  "  one  Body"  and  of  course  but  "  one  Faith"  (Eph.  iv.  5);  but  if 
each  individual  may  have  a  creed  of  his  own,  then  it  as  necessarily  follows 
that  each  individual  may  be  a  Church  to  himself,  which  is  the  highest  ab- 
surdity. And  the  mere  circumstance  tliat  any  number  of  individuals  associate 
together  because  their  private  opinions  agree,  does  not  remove  this  absurdity  ; 
they  are  not  a  church,  as  they  would  themselves  unconsciously  confess  by 
not  thinking  guilty  of  the  sin  of  schism,  any  who  should  see  fit,  for  their 
own  good  reasons,  to  leave  their  associates.  There  must  be  a  church  before 
schism  can  be  possible ;  and  conversely,  where  that  sin  is  impossible  there  is 
no  church.  Now  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  members  of  the  different  protestant 
sects  are  freely  dismissed  from  one  to  another  as  being  in  "  good  standing  1" 
which  would  be  absurd  if  their  pastors  believed  there  was  a  grievous  sin 
upon  the  heads  of  those  thus  dismissed.  May  not  a  Methodist  become  a  Pres- 
byterian if  he  think  fit,  or  a  Presbyterian  a  Baptist  or  Lutheran,  and  so  on, 
without  being  thought  by  others  to  imperil  his  salvation,  or  even  thinking  so 
himself?  How  often  do  such  transmigrations  occur  without  the  charge 
or  the  consciousness  of  guilt]  How  often  for  mere  convenience  sake? 
Is  not  this  abundant  proof  that  the  possibility  of  committing  schism 
never  occurs  to  the  thoughts  of  such  persons  1  Is  it  not  proof  that  that 
sin  is  impossible  on  their  principles,  and  consequently,  that  they  confess,  un- 
consciously, that  they  are  not  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  care  not  whether 
they  are  or  no  1  A  remarkable  illustration  of  the  argument  I  am  here  urging 
is  furnished  by  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  who,  in  his  truthful*  and  effective 
publications  on  our  Church,  so  speaks  of  the  "  inborn  horror"  with  which 
every  genuine  member  of  the  Church  regards  the  sin  of  schism,  as  to  show 
that  he  is  himself  unable  to  appreciate  such  a  sentiment.     It  is  one  which  he 

*  I  use  the  word  « truthful"  deliberately,  and  with  more  pleasure  because  Mr. 
Barnes  has  been  assailed  as  having  stated  in  his  first  pamphlet  "  what  he  knew 
at  the  time  to  be  untrue."  Of  course  I  do  not  agree  with  him  in  all  he  says.  He 
makes  some  mistakes,  and  labours  under  grievous  misapprehensions  in  respect 
of  some  of  our  doctrines  ;  but  this  he  cannot  help,  because  he  views  our  church 
from  without,  and  through  the  medium  of  his  own  system.  There  is,  however 
throughout  his  essay,  proof  of  his  single  aim  to  see  what  the  truth  is,  and  to 
state  it  with  plainness.  His  main  position,  and  his  arguments  to  sustain  it,  are 
alike  impregnable.  In  reading  his  words  one  should  take  them  in  his  own 
obvious  meaning;  and  so  understanding  him,  when  he  says,  "it  has  never  been 
possible  permanently  to  connect  Evangelical  religion  ivith  a  religion  of  forms,"  I  agree 
with  him ;  and  add,  moreover,  that  a  truer  word  never  was  spoken.  What  Mr. 
Barnes  means  by  '  Evangelical  religion,'  never  was  thought  of  by  the  Catholic 
Church.  Neither  was  any  such  'connexion'  attempted  at  the  Reformation  as 
Mr.  Barnes  thinks.  Surely  the  Baptismal  office  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
England  might  have  convinced  him  of  that ;  so  also  would  the  Articles,  if  he  did 


5S 

never  feels  ;  it  is  what  he,  as  a  Presbyterian,  cannot  feel.  It  appears  to  him 
to  be  a  superstition,  or  an  inexplicable  weakness.  And  yet  the  schismatical 
temper  which  individual  preferences  created  in  the  Church  of  Corinth,  was 
rebuked  by  St.  Paul  in  such  terms  as  these  :  "  While  one  saith  I  am  of 

Paul,  and  another,  I  of  Apollos,  are  ye  not  carnal  ? Know  ye 

not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in 
you  1  If  any  man  destroy  (marg.  transl.)  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall  God 
destroy ;  for  the  temple  of  God  is  holy,  which  temple  ye  are."  And  he  who 
commits  schism,  or  cherishes  the  temper,  does  all  he  can  to  destroy  or  at  least  to 
injure  "  the  temple  of  God."  One  would  then  be  glad  to  learn  from  Mr.  Barnes 
and  those  who  think  with  him,  what  are  the  principles  or  antecedent  condi- 
tions on  which  the  sin  thus  denounced  by  St.  Paul  is  possible  1  The  modern 
figment  of  an  invisible  Church  on  earth,  supposing  its  reality,  cannot  possi- 
bly be  afflicted  with  any  such  evil.  On  the  Calvinistic  hypothesis  "neither 
death  nor  life,  angels,  principalities  nor  powers,  can  separate"  a  member 
from  such  a  body.  Not  schism  only,  but  no  sin  at  all  could  thus  avail.  It 
surely  then  would  become  considerate  persons,  to  give  a  little  more  heed  to 
this  matter  than  it  usually  meets  with.  There  is  such  a  sin  as  schism  ;  it 
is  denounced  in  the  New  Testament ;  it  is  one  that  the  members  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  are  liable  to.  Does  it  not  therefore  behoove  every  man 
who  calls  himself  a  Christian,  to  know  what  that  sin  is,  and  how  it  may  be 
committed,  in  order  that  he  may  shun  it,  and  all  temptations  to  it  1  How 
else  is  one  to  know  that  he  is  not  guilty  of  this  sin,  or  at  the  least  is  not  a 
partaker  of  other  men's  sins,  saying  ''lam  of  Paul  or  Apollos  1"  "Will 
not  some  persons  exercise  their  private  judgment,  and  act  upon  their  indi- 
vidual responsibility,  in  investigating  this  all  important  matter  ? 

not  make  the  17th,  interpreted  by  the  Westminster  Confession,  the  exponent  of 
the  whole  thirty-nine.  What  is  known  as  the  "  Evangelical  party"  in  the  Church, 
is  little  more  than  fifty  years  old;  it  is  the  school  of  Romaine,  Newton,  Cecil,  and 
Scott.  They  have  nothing  to  do  even  with  the  low  church  or  latitudinarian 
party,  which  arose  after  the  Restoration,  and  came  into  full  power  under  Tillot- 
son  and  Burnet,  with  the  state  to  support  them,  after  the  Revolution  of  1688. 
The  "  Evangelical"  movement  was  a  reaction  upon  the  stupefaction  which  the 
low  church  teaching  had  brought  upon  the  Church.  Its  mission  under  God  was 
to  undo  the  mischief  wrought  by  the  state-school  of  Tillotson  and  Burnet ;  it  has 
succeeded  to  a  great  extent  and  is  now  expiring.  It  was  able  to  break  down,  but 
is  wholly  impotent  at  reconstruction  upon  the  original  basis  of  the  Church.  The 
latitudinarians  reaped  what  they  sowed;  they  supplied  the  "Evangelicals"  with 
the  means  to  overthrow  themselves.  They  began  by  trampling  on  the  sacred 
principles  of  the  Church,  and  at  last  were  put  down  by  those  who  did  their  own 
work  at  a  more  thoroughgoing  rate.  Coleridge  somewhere  says  that '  no  principle 
was  ever  sacrificed  which  did  not  in  the  end,  fully  revenge  itself  by  making  re- 
prisals ;'  the  history  of  the  Church  constantly  bears  witness  to  the  truth  of  this 
remark. 


59 

There  is  a  further  thought  suggested  by  the  loud  boasts  which  one  hears  so 
often  of  the  "  right  of  private  judgment,"  as  these  words  are  commonly  taken. 
If  a  man  has  the  right  to  interpret  the  doctrinal  parts  of  the  New  Testament, 
so  as  to  construct  for  himself  a  creed,  distinct  from  that  which  has  always 
been  professed  by  the  Church  Catholic;  has  he  not  also  the  same  right  to 
put  a  new  interpretation  upon  the  moral  precepts,  and  so  make  for  himself  a 
new  ethical  code  1  Where  is  the  difference  so  far  as  the  "  right"  is  concerned'? 
The  right  claimed  is,  to  interpret  the  Bible  each  one  for  himself,  and  as  each 
one  chooses ;  and  ethics  are  as  much  a  part  of  the  Bible  as   its  doctrines. 
Christian  morals,  both  in  their  science  and  practice,  are  as  peculiar  to  the  New 
Law  as  Christian  doctrines.     The  former  are  the  distinctive  fruit  of  the  latter, 
and  the  two  are  therefore  inseparable ;  precept  often  teaching  doctrine,  and 
doctrine  precept.     Why  then  do  not  people  as  boldly  avow  their  right  to  put 
new  meanings  into  the  passages  condemning  vices,  and  enjoining  good  works, 
as  they  do  in  respect  of  those  which  speak  of  thedoctrine  of  good  works, jus- 
tification, regeneration,  the  virtue  of  the  Sacraments,  the  nature  of  the  Church, 
and  ministry  1     Sad  as  it  is  to  know  that  the  "  right"  so  to  call  it,  has 
been  freely  exercised,  though  a  distinct  avowal  of  it  is  seldom  heard.     Symp- 
toms, however,  of  private  interference  with  the  established  ethical  code  of  the 
Church,  began  to  appear  soon  after  the  discovery  of  what  is  called  the  "  riorht 
of  private  judgment"  ;  that  is,  soon  after  any  individual's  interpretation  of  the 
Bible  was  assumed  to  be  the   same  with  the  Bible  itself.     Luther  in  his 
celebrated  commentary  on  the  Galatians  remarks  : — "Although  this  is  as 
clear  as  noonday,  yet  the  Papists  are  so  senseless  and  blind,  that  out  of  the 
Gospel  they  have  fashioned  a  law  of  love,  and  out  of  Christ  a  law  giver, 
who  hath  imposed  far  more  burdensome  laws  than  Moses  himself.     But  the 
Gospel  (1)  teacheth,  Christ  hath  come,  not  to  give  a  new  law,  but  to  offer 
himself  up  as  a  victim  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."      Singular  indeed,  but 
quite  Luther-like  is  the  contrast  in  which  this  passage  stands  to  our  Lord's 
Sermon  on  the  mount,  and  to  His  other  words  :  "  He  that  hath  my  command- 
ments and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me  ;   and  he  that  loveth  me  shall 
be  loved  of  my  Father."      And  again,   "  when  Thomas  of  Aquin  and  other 
schoolmen  assert  that  the  law  hath  been  abolished,  they  pretend  that  the 
Mosaic  ordinances  respecting  judicial  affairs,  and  in  like  manner  the  laws 
respecting  ceremonies  and  the  services  of  the  temple  were  after  the  death  of 
Christ  pernicious,  and  on  that  account  were  set  aside  and  abolished.      But, 
when  they  say  the  Ten  Commandments  are  not  to  be  abrogated  they  them- 
selves understand  not  what  they  assert  or  lay  down. 

"But  thou  when  thou  speakest  of  the  abolition  of  the  law  be  mindful 
that  thou  speakest  of  the  law  as  it  really  is,  and  is  rightly  called,  to  wit, 
the  spiritual  law,  and  understand  thereby  the  whole  law  making  no  dis- 
tinction between  civil  laws,  ceremonies,  and  ten  commandments." 

The  doctrinal  bearing  of  these  passages  is  easily  seen.  They  illustrate 
Luther's  great  dogma.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  entered  his  mind  that 
Christians  are  under  higher  obligations  to  observe  the  moral  law  than  the 


60 

Jews  were,  because  our  gifts  will  enable  us  to  fulfil  it.  St.  Paul  says, 
"  Sin"  (  mark  the  word ;  it  is  not  law  but  sin)  "  shall  not  have  dominion 
over  you,  for  ye  are  not  under  the  law  but  under  grace ,-"  as  much  as  to  say, 
that  under  the  old  law  sin  had  dominion ;  but  under  the  dispensation  of 
grace  it  need  not  have,  and  shall  not  if  we  be  faithful ;  for  "  the  righteousness 
of  the  law  may  be  fulfilled  in  us  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
Spirit." 

M  hler,  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  these  quotations  from  Luther,  cites 
(§18)  also  the  following  passage  from  his  "  Table  Talk  :" — "And  it  would 
not  be  good  for  us  to  do  all  that  God  commands,  for  He  would  thereby  be 
deprived  of  His  Divinity  and  would  become  a  liar,  and  could  not  remain  true  !" 
Corresponding  with  all  this  is  the  concession  of  Luther,  Bucer,  Melanc- 
thon,  and  others  of  their  party,  to  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  to  take  to  him- 
self two  wives. 

To  conclude  :  it  may  be  observed  that  as  the  moral  code  which  the 
Church  has  ever  maintained  does  not  interfere  with  any  individual's  rights, 
but  by  grace  rather  helps  one  to  lead  a  life  of  purity  and  holiness ;  so  the 
Creed  of  the  Church  is  not  opposed  to  any  real  private  rights,  but  on  the 
contrary  secures  to  one  freedom  from  heresy  and  schism. 

B. 

Dr.  Durbin  on  p.  7  of  his  letter  says  that  the  Methodists  derived  their 
ordination  from  the  same  source  whence  we  obtained  ours.  I  do  not  think  a 
statement  like  this  at  all  worthy  of  any  reply.  It  however  furnishes  a  happy 
introduction  to  the  following  extracts  from  a  startling  tract  lately  published  in 
Baltimore,  entitled  "A  Letter  to  a  Methodist  by  a  Presbyter  of  the  Diocese  of 
Maryland."  They  will  doubtless  put  intelligent  Methodists  in  the  pjossession 
of  certain  facts  of  which  they  must  be  ignorant.  Methodists  ought  to"  recollect 
that  they  are  Wesleyans — the  disciples  of  one  man.  They  ought  to  remember 
that  by  him  they  were  first  formed  into  a  party  in  the  Church,  whence  the 
passage  to  open  schism  was  easy.  This  man  too,  whatever  may  have  been 
his  merits,  was  not  inspired.  He  had  no  credentials  to  show  that  he  was 
called  of  God  to  consummate  such  a  work  as  the  founding  of  a  new  church. 
And  then  they  should  bear  in  mind  that  God  once  reproved  man  for  making 
even  an  attachment  to  inspired  Apostles,  the  excuse  for  schism.  Let  them 
calmly  reflect  upon  what  follows,  and  ask  themselves  what  sort  of  a  Com- 
mentary their  history  furnishes  upon  this  text,  "  Now  this  I  say  that  every 
one  of  you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul ;  and  I  of  Apollos  ;  and  I  of  Cephas  ;  and  I 
of  Christ.  Is  Christ  divided?  Was  Paul  crucified  for  you,  or  were  you 
baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul.  For  while  one  saith  I  am  of  Paul ;  and  another 
I  of  Apollos  ;  are  ye  not  carnal  ?"  1  Cor.  i.  12,  13 ;  iii.  4. 

Wesleyh  Ordinations. 

"On  this  point  rests  the  validity  of  the  Methodist  ministry.  If  Wesley  had 
authority  to  ordain  Dr.  Coke  a  Bishop,  then  it  is  conceded  that  the  Methodists 
have  a  lawful  ministry  and  lawful  sacraments ;  but,  if  Wesley  had  no  such 


61 

(lufhorify  to  ordain  him,  then  his  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  was  a  nullity,  and  the 
Methodists  have  neither  a  lawful  ministry,  nor  lnwful  sacraments  ;  and  as  there 
cannot  be  a  Christian  Church  without  a  lawful  ministry  and  lawful  sacraments, 
it  will,  in  that  case,  necessarily  follow,  that  what  is  called  the  "  Methodist 
Church,"  is  not,  as  such,  a  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Now,  lest  you  might  suppose  that  some  wrong  is  done  to  the  Methodists  in 
the  is&ue  here  made,  I  shall  quote  theyJ/>Y  section  of  their  "Book  of  Discipline,"  to 
prove  that  the  entire  validity  of  the  Methodist  ministry  is  made  by  themselves  to 
rest  upon  Wesley's  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke.     It  is  as  follows: 

"  On  the  Origiit  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church" 

"  The  preachers*  and  members  of  our  Society  in  general,  being  convinced 
that  there  was  a  great  deficiency  of  vital  religion  in  the  Church  of  England  in. 
America,  and  being  in  many  places  destitute  of  the  Christian  Sacraments,  as 
several  of  the  clergy  had  forsaken  their  churches,  requested  the  late  Rev.  John 
Wesley  to  take  such  measures,  in  his  wisdom  and  prudence,  as  would  afford  them 
suitable  relief  in  their  distress. 

"In  consequence  of  this,  our  venerable  friend,  who,  under  God,  has  been  the 
father  of  the  great  revival  of  religion  now  extending  over  the  earth  by  means  of 
the  Methodists,  determined  to  ordain  ministers  for  America;  and,  for  this  pur- 
pose, in  the  year  1784,  sent  over  three  regularly-]^  ordained  clergy  :  but  preferring 
Episcopal  mode  of  Church  government  to  any  other,  he  solemnly  set  apart,  by 
the  imposition  of  Ais  hands  and  prayer,  one  of  them,  viz.  Thomas  Coke,  Doctor  of 
Civil  Law,  late  of  Jesus  College,  in  the  University  of  Oxford,  and  a  Presbyter  of 
the  Church  of  England,  for  the  Episcopal  office;  and  having  delivered  to  him 
letters  of  Episcopal  orders,  commissioned^:  and  directed  him  to  set  apart  Francis 
Asbury,  then  general  assistant  of  the  Methodist  Society  in  America,  for  the  same 
Episcopal  office ;  he,  the  said  Francis  Asbury,  being  first  ordained  deacon  and 
elder.§  In  consequence  of  which,  the  said  Francis  Asbury  was  solemnly  set 
apart  for  the  said  Episcopal  office  by  prayer,  and  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of 
the  said  Thomas  Coke,  other  regularly  ordainedll  ministers  assisting  in  the  sacred 
ceremony.     At  which  time^  the   General  Conference  held  at  Baltimore,  did 

*  At  this  time,  the  preachers  were  considered  only  lay-preachers,  and  according 
to  the  uniform  advice  of  Mr.  Wesley,  had  declined  administering  the  sacraments. 
In  1778,  a  few  of  these  lay-preachers,  in  Virginia,  undertook  to  ordain  each  other, 
thinking  thereby  to  get  the  power  of  administering  the  sacraments  !  but,  by  a  vote 
of  one  of  the  Conferences,  this  ordination  was  declared  invalid  !  (Life  of 
Wesley  by  Coke  and  Moore,  chap.  3,  sec.  2.) 

f  These  "regularly"  ordained  clergy,  were  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England. 
They  were  not  ordained  by  Wesley.  The  Methodists  here  themselves  draw  the 
distinction  between  "regularly  ordained  clergy"  and  Wesley's  ordinations. 

t  Lest  it  might  be  supposed,  that  Wesley  had  "commissioned"  Dr.  Coke,  in 
these  (so-called)  "letters  of  Episcopal  orders,"  to  "set  apart"  Mr.  Asbury  for  the 
"  same  Episcopal  office,"  it  is  proper  to  state  that  no  such  "  commission"  is  given 
to  Dr.  Coke  in  said  "  letters."     Where  is  this  "  commission"  to  be  found? 

§  As  some  might  think  from  this  language,  that  Wesley  hAi  "  firsl  ordained 
[Mr.  Asbury]  deacon  and  elder,"  it  should  be  known,  that  Asbury  received  no 
ordination  from  Wesley.  He  was  only  a  layman,  when  Dr.  Coke  came  to 
America;  and  Dr.  Coke  ordained  him  a  deacon,  elder,  and  superintendent, or,  (as  he 
afterwards  called  himself,)  a  Bishop,  in  the  course  of  a  few  days!  (See  Lee's 
"  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,"  p.  94.) 

II  One  of  these  "  regularly  ordained"  ministers  was  a  German  minister  named 
Otterbine!     (Lee's  History,  p.  94.) 

K  This  is  not  true.  The  General  Conference  did  not  at  that  "  time"  receive 
Coke  and  Asbury  as  Bishops,  as  will  be  shown  hereafter. 

6 


62 

unanimously  receive  the  said  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  jisbury  as  their  Bishops, 
being  fully  satisfied  of  the  validity  of  their  Episcopal  ordination." 

Thus  you  will  perceive  that  the  validity  of  the  Methodist  ministry  is  made,  by 
the  Methodists  themselves,  to  depend  on  the  validity  of  Dr.  Coke's  ordination  by 
Wesley. 

Let  us  then  seriously  inquire,  where  did  Wesley  obtain  the  Authority  to  ordain 
Dr.  Coke  1 

It  certainly  was  not  born  with  him ;  for  authority  to  ordain  a  minister  of  Christ 
is  born  with  no  man. 

He  could  not  have  obtained  it  from  any  temporal  poM'er;  for  all  the  kings  and 
governors  of  the  earth  combined  cannot  ordain  a  minister  of  Christ,  nor  confer 
the  authority  to  ordain  one. 

Was  this  authority  conferred  on  Wesle)'- at  his  orrfi»?a/?on? — Plainly  not :  be- 
cause the  authority  for  ordaining  in  the  Church  of  England,  (of  which  Wesley 
was  a  member,)  is  confined  exclusively  to  the  order  of  Bishops,  and  Wesley  was 
not  consecrated  a  Bishop,  but  only  ordained  a  Presbyter.  As  no  such  authority 
was  then  conferred  on  Wesley  ;  he  did  not  obtain  it  when  he  was  ordained. 

That  you  may  perceive  at  a  glance,  what  authority  was  conferred  on  Wesley 
when  he  was  ordained,  I  shall  transcribe  the  very  ivords  used  by  the  Bishop  who 
ordained  him.  You  may  find  them  in  the  Office  for  "  The  ordering  of  Priests," 
in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer ;  they  are  as  follows  : 

"  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  P7iest  in  the  Church  of 
God,  now  committed  unto  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands:  whose  sins  thou 
dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven  ;  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain  the}'  are  retained  : 
And  be  thou  a  faithful  Dispenser  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  of  His  holy  Sacraments  :  In  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Amen." 

By  this  form,  every  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England  is  ordained  ;  of  course, 
Wesley  was  thus  ordained  ;  and  you  may  thus  perceive,  at  once,  that  no  authority 
to  ordain  was  then  committed  unto  him. 

But  here  your  preachers  meet  us  with  the  argument,  that  Bishops  and  Pres- 
byters are  one  and  the  same  order  of  ministers;  and,  therefore,  Wesley  being  a 
Presbyter,  was  also  a  Bishop,  and  therefore  had  authority  to  ordain — and  this,  too, 
in  the  teeth  of  the  fact,  as  I  have  just  proved,  that  no  such  authority  was  given 
to  him  at  his  ordination  !  Whether  Bishop  and  Presbyter  be  the  same  order,  is  a 
point  I  shall  consider  hereafter;  at  present  I  shall  content  myself  with  showing, 
that  this  argument  will  not  avail  the  Methodists  in  the  least,  because  : 

If  Wesley  were  a  Bishop,  because  he  was  a  Presbyter,  ihen  Dr.  Coke  must  also 
have  been  a  Bishop,  since  he  was  a  Presbyter  when  Wesley  "laid  his  hands  on 
him."  And  if  Dr.  Coke  was  already  a  Bishop,  what  did  Wesley  make  him  by 
ordaining  him  1  Not  a  Bishop,  surely ;  for  he  was  one  already,  if  Presbyters 
and  Bishops  be  the  same  order !  What  then  1  He  must  have  made  him  an 
officer  higher  than  a  Bishop — an  officer  unknown  to  the  Church  of  God  !  Be- 
siJes,  if  Dr.  Coke,  being  a  Presbyter,  was,  therefore,  a  Bishop,  he  had  the  same 
right  to  ordain  Wesley,  as  Wesley  had  to  ordain  him  ! 

This  argument,  I  consider  so  unanswerable  and  conclusive,  to  prove  the  inva- 
lidity of  Coke's  ordination,  that  I  might  here  let  the  subject  rest;  but,  before  I 
close  shall  again  advert  to  it,  for  reasons  which  will  then  appear. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  one  of  the  chief  arguments  by  which  the  Methodists 
attempt  to  show  that  Wesley  had  authority  to  ordain,  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
consider  their  other  great  argument,  namely,  that  Wesley  had  a  "Providential 
call"  to  ordain. 

When  Wesley  sent  out  Dr.  Coke,  he  gave  him  the  following  instrument  of 
writing,  which  "  The  Book  of  Discipline,"  above  quoted,  calls  his  "  letters  of 
Kpiscopal  orders  .•" 

"To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  John  Wesley,  late  fellow  of  Lincoln 
College,  in  Oxford,  Presbyter  o^  \\\e  Church  of  England,  sendeth  greeting: 

"  Whereas,  many  of  the  people  in  the  Southern  Provinces  of  North  America, 
"who  desire  to  continue  under  my  care,  and  still  adhere  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline 


63 

of  the  Church  of  England,  are  greatly  distressed  for  want  of  ministers  to  admin- 
ister the  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  according  to  the  usage 
of  the  same  Church  :  and,  whereas,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  other  way  of  sup' 
plying  them  tvith  ministers — 

"  Know  all  men,  that  I,  John  Wesley,  think  myself  to  be  providentially  called 
at  this  time  to  set  apart  some  persons  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  in  America. 
And  therefore,  under  the  protection  of  Almighty  God,  and  with  a  single  eye  to 
his  glory,  I  have  this  day  set  apart  as  a  Superintendent,  by  the  imposition  of  my 
hands*  and  prayer,  (being  assisted  by  other  ordained  ministers,)  Thomas  Coke, 
Doctor  of  Civil  Law,  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  a  man  whom  I 
judge  to  be  well  qualified  for  that  great  work.  And  I  do  hereby  recommend 
him  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  as  a  fit  person  to  preside  over  the  flock  of 
Christ.  In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal,  this  second 
day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and 
eighty-four.f  John  Wesley." 

Whatever  may  be  meant  by  the  phrase,  "providentially  called,'^  in  the  above 
document,  Wesley  has  saved  us  the  trouble  of  finding  it  out,  for  he  expressly 
tells  us  why  he  thought  he  had  this  "providential  call,"  namely,  because,  there  does 
not  appear  to  be  any  other  way  of  supplying  tJiem  -with  ministers. 

That  this  was  Wesley's  true  reason  for  thinking  himself  "providentially 
called"  to  undertake  this  business,  is  made  still  plainer  by  his  letter,  dated 
"  Bristol,  10th  September,  1784,"  (only  eight  days  after  he  "laid  hands"  on 
Dr.  Coke,)  addressed  to  "  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  brethren  in  North 
America,"^  in  which,  on  adverting  to  the  above  transaction,  he  says: 

"If  any  one  will  point  out  a  more  rational  and  scriptural  way  of  feeding  and 
guiding  these  poor  sheep  in  the  wilderness,  /  will  gladly  embrace  it.  At  present  1 
cannot  see  any  better  method  than  I  have  taken." 

Whether  Wesley,  then,  had  a  "providential  call"  to  ordain,  depends  upon  the 
fact,  whether  there  was  "«??!/  other  ivay"  to  obtain  ministers  for  God's  Church, 
(for  the  Methodists  had  not  yet  left  the  Church,)  than  his  taking  upon  himself  the 
authority  to  ordain  Dr.  Coke  ;  because,  if  it  can  be  plainly  shown  that  there  was 
an  "other  way,"  then  it  is  evident,  on  Wesley's  own  ground,  that  he  had  no 
such  "providential  call." 

Rightly  to  solve  this  question,  it  will  be  necessary  to  advert  to  the  position  of 
the  American  Church  at  that  time.  Before  these  "United  States"  were  separated 
from  Great  Britain  by  the  Revolution,  the  Church  of  England  had  been  planted 
in  several  of  them,  and  the  jurisdiction  over  these  Churches  and  their  ministers 
was  committed  to  the  Bishop  of  London.  After  the  Revolution,  consequently, 
when  this  country  was  separated  from  Great  Britain,  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishop  of  London  was,  practically,  at  an  end,  and  the  American  Church  was 
thus  left  without  an  available  ecclesiastical  head.  Some  wise  men  of  late,  among 
the  Methodists,  have  atfected  to  think,  that  the  Church  in  this  country  was 
destroyed,  because  it  had  lost  its  Bishop  !  It  was  no  more  destroyed,  than  the 
Church  in  New  York,  or  Maryland,  would  be  destroyed,  should  she  lose  her 

*  This  "  imposition  of  hands"  was  not  done  in  a  Church,  openly  before  the 
people,  but  in  Wesley's  hed-chaniber  in  Bristol!  It  soon,  however,  got  noised 
about,  that  Wesley  had  made  a  Bishop  !  (though  there  is  not  a  word  of  the  kind  in 
these  "  letters  of  Episcopal  orders,"  as  they  are  called.)  The  Rev.  Charles  Wes- 
ley, who  was  not  in  the  secret,  on  hearing  of  it,  wrote  the  following  epigram  : 

"So  easily  are  Bishops  made. 

By  man's,  or  woman's  whim; 
Wesley  his  hands  on  Coke  hath  laid, — 

But — who  laid  hands  on  him  1" 

f  Reprinted  from  a  tract  written  by  Dr.  George  Peck,  a  Methodist  preacher. 
^  Lee's  Short  History,  page  91.        , 


64 

Bishop,  by  death,  degradation,  or  resignation.  The  remedy  was  the  same  in 
both  cases,  to  elect  another,  and  have  him  consecrated  by  lawful  authority.  And  this 
was  done  by  the  Presbyters  of  the  American  Church :  they  elected  four  of  their 
number  to  the  office  of  Bishop;  and  these  four  proceeded  to  England,  where 
three  of  them  were  consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  one  of 
them  in  Scotland  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  in  that  country.  The  successors 
and  spiritual  descendants  of  Ihese/owr,  deriving  their  authority  from  the  blessed 
Redeemer,  through  "the  imposition  of  the  hands"  of  His  lawful  Bishops,  have 
multiplied  to  twenty-two,  with  a  prospect  of  further  increase ;  and  their  authority 
is  acknowledged  by  more  than  twelve  hunched  clergy,  w^ho  derive  their  ordination 
from  them  and  their  predecessors. — Here,  then,  was  an  "  other  way"  of  obtaining 
a  supply  of  ministers,  than  by  a  Presbyter  iindertaking  to  ordain  another  Presby- 
ter a  Bishop  in  his  chamber!  And,  as  Wesley  makes  his  "providential  call" 
depend  on  the /art  of  there  not  being  "any  other  way,"  and  this  proof  that  there 
was  another  way,  makes  it  plain  to  a  demonstration,  that  Wesley  had  no  "  provi- 
dential call"  to  ordain  whatever!  It  was  just  seventy-three  days  after  this  ordination 
of  Dr.  Coke,  that  Dr.  Seabury  was  consecrated  in  Scotland,  to  be  the  Bishop  of  the 
Church  in  Connecticut.  Had  Wesley,  therefore,  waited  but  seventy-three  days,he 
would  have  seen  that  God  was  providing  a  lawful  ministry  for  His  Church,  and 
that  he  did  not  need  the  aid  of  the  superintendent  of  a  Methodist  society  to  do 
the  work  for  Him.  Strange — passing  strange — it  is,  it  never  should  have  crossed 
Wesley's  mind,  that  God  could  provide  ministers  for  his  Church,  without  his  in- 
strumentality !*  Strange,  too,  when  there  were,  at  least,  one  hundred  "regularly 
ordained"  Presbyters  of  the  Church  remaining  here,  (after  she  had  been  sepa- 
rated, by  the  Revolution,  from  the  Mother  Church  of  England,)  that,  if  there 
were  to  be  a  "providential  call"  to  ordain  ministers,  it  did  not  occur  to  Wesley 
the  "call"  would  have  been  given  to  one  of  them  instead  of  hivi.  Four  of  thena 
were  "  called,"  as  I  have  shown,  by  those  possessing  authority  to  call  and  ordain 
ministers  for  the  Church  of  Clirist,  namely,  by  the  lawful  Bishops  of  the 
Churches  of  England  and  Scotland;  thus  showing,  beyond  the  power  of  contra- 
diction, that  God  had  not  forsaken  His  Church,  and  that  Wesley's  thinking  (for 
he  tells  us  he  only  thought  so,)  that  he  had  a  "providential  call,"  was  only  the 
imagining  of  a  fallible  man,  trusting  too  much  to  his  own  narrow  view  of  the 
circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed.  And  thus,  sir,  is  scattered  to  the  winds, 
the  other  grand  argument  for  the  validity  of  Wesley's  ordinations. 

Hitherto,  you  will  have  observed,  I  have  argued  this  question  on  the  ground 
taken  by  the  Methodists,  that  Wesley  ordained  Dr.  Coke,  to  be  a  Bishop — by  a 
Bishop  meaning  the  first  and  highest  officer  of  the  Church  of  God,  and  that 
Wesley  himself  was  such  a  Bishop.     But  this  we  deny,  because, 

1.  Wesley,  in  the  above  (so  called)  "letters  of  orders,"  simply  styles  himself 
"a  Presbyter  o£  the  Church  of  England." 

2.  In  that  document,  he  does  not  say  a  word  about  having  ordained  Dr.  Coke 
to  be  a  Bishop,  but  merely  that  he  "  set  him  apartf  as  a  Superinte^idcnt."  Now 
what  did  Wesley  mean,  by  this  phrase  of  setting  him  "  apart  as  a  Superintend- 
ent r' 

In  the  letter,  above  quoted,  addressed  (not  to  Bishop  Coke,  but)  to  "  Dr.  Coke, 

*  Wesley  saw  this  when  it  was  too  late.  Dr.  Coke,  in  his  letter  to  Bishop 
White,  says:  "He  (Mr.  Wesley)  being  pressed  by  our  friends  on  this  side  of 
the  water,  for  ministers  to  administer  the  sacraments  to  them,  (there  being  very 
few  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  then  in  the  States,)  went  farther,  I  am 
sure,  than  he  would  have  gone,  if  he  had  foreseen  some  events  which  followed." 

f  "  Ordination  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  designating  or  setting  apart  of  a 
person  to  the  work  of  the  ministry;  for  in  strictness,  any  one  may  do  this  for 
himself,  or  it  may  be  done  for  him  by  his  parents,  guardians,  &c.,  and  involves 
nothing  but  what  any  layman  may  perform  ;  whereas  ordination  is  the  actual  com- 
munication  of  authority  from  a  legitimate  source,  to  execute  those  functions  which 
appertain  to  the  several  orders  of  the  ministry."     (Staunton.) 


65 

Mr.  Ashury,  and  our  Brethren  in  North  America"  is  the  following  paragraph,  which 
explains  the  whole  transaction  : 

"  I  have  apjioinled  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Francis  Asbury  to  be  joint  Superintendents 
over  our  Brethren  in  North  America." 

Now,  I  beg  you  to  examine  this  language  narrowly.  1.  Wesley  does  not  say 
he  ordained  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  but  simply  that  he  "  appoiniccr  them.  But, 
by  using  the  word  "  appointed,"  did  Wesley  mean  that  he  ordained  them  1  Cer- 
tainly not;  because  the  same  word  (appointed)  is  used  respecting  them  both, 
and  Wesley  did  not  ordain  Asbury,  lor  Asbury  was  at  that  time  in  America, 
and  had  been  for  several  years  previously.  Nevertheless,  Wesley  "  appointed" 
hitn  a  Superintendent,  as  well  as  Coke  ;  and  as  ordination  was  not  necessary  to 
constitute  Asbury  a  Superintendent,  neither  was  it  necessary  to  constitute  Dr. 
Coke  one;  and  it  is  evident  that,  as  Asbury  was  not  ordained,  Coke  could  not 
have  been,  (as  the  same  word,  "  appointed,"  is  used  respecting  them  both,)  and 
that  Wesley  did  not  mean  to  say  that  he  had  ordained  them,  when  he  said  that  he 
"  appointed"  them.  Indeed,  the  idea  of  ordaining  a  Superintendent  of  a  merely 
human  society*  is  a  thing  utterly  unknown  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  Church  of 
God.  It  is  precisely  the  same  thing,  as  if  a  Presbyter  now  was  to  ordain  a  Super- 
intendent for  the  Sunday  School  Union,  or  a  Bible  Society.  Wesley  was  too 
sound  a  divine  to  adopt  any  such  absurd  notion.  He  was  himself  the  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Methodist  Society  in  England,  but  had  never  been  ordained  to  that 
office  ;  and  if  Wesley  could  be  a  Superintendent  without  ordination,  the  same 
could  be  done  by  Coke  or  Asbury  without  ordination.  No,  sir,  there  is  not  a 
partick  of  evidence  to  prove  that  Wesley  ever  "ordained"  Dr.  Coke.  Coke  was 
placed  precisely  on  the  same  footing  with  Asbury,  (who  was  a.layman) — Wesley 
"  appointed"  them  both  Superintendents  of  the  Methodist  Society  in  North  Ame- 
rica; and  the  only  difference  between  them  is  this:  that  in  "appointing"  Dr.  Coke, 
Wesley  did  it  in  rather  a  more  formal  manner,  by  placing  his  hands  on  his  head, 
and  praying  over  him  ! 

But  (2d,)  did  Wesley  by  «  appointing"  Coke  and  Asbury  to  be  "Superintend- 
ents" intend  to  make  them  "Bishops'!"  Lee,  in  his  "Short  History,"  gives  the 
following  account  of  these  men  first  calling  themselves  Bishops,  in  the  minutes  of 
their  Conference  :  (pages  127-8.) 

"In  the  course  of  this  year  (1787)  Mr.  Asbury  reprinted  the  general  minutes; 
but  in  a  different  form  from  what  they  were  before.  The  title  of  this  pamphlet 
was  as  follows : 

"  A  form  of  discipline  for  the  ministers,  preachers,  and  members  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  in  America;  considered  and  approved  at  a  Conference 
held  at  Baltimore  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  on  Monday,  the  27th  day  of  Decem- 
ber, 1784.  *  *   *  * 

"In  this  discipline  there  were  thirty-one  sections,  and  sixty-three  questions, 
with  answers  to  them  all. 

"  The  third  question  in  the  second  section,  and  the  answer,  read  thus  : 

"Q.  Is  there  anj^  other  business  to  be  done  in  Conference  1 

<' A.  The  electing  and  ordaining  of  Bishops,  Elders,  and  Deacons. 

"This  was  the  /Jrs/ time  that  our  Superintendents  ever  gave  the  title  oi Bishops 
in  the  minutes.   They  changed  the  title  themselves  ivithont  the  consent  of  the  Conference!^' 

Thus  it  appears  that  a  fraud  was  practised  by  one  of  these  Superintendents  to 

*  At  that  time,  there  was  no  such  thing  in  existence  as  a  " Methodist  Church'' 
Wesley,  and  the  Methodists  themselves  only  spoke  of  themselves  as  the  Metho- 
dist society,  or  societies,  or  sometimes  as  the  Methodist  Connexion,  and  that  Wesley 
was  their  founder  and  father.  Of  course,  it  was  only  a  human  society,  and  nothing 
more  :  indeed,  at  that  time,  it  did  not  claim  to  be  any  thing  more ;  and  the  idea,  of 
ordaining  a  Superintendent,  or  any  other  minister,  for  a  human  society,  is  absurd. 
Lee  says,  (page  47,)  "  We  were  only  a  religious  society,  and  not  a  Church."  At 
page  94,  he  says:  "At  this  Conference  we  formed  ourselves  into  a  regular 
Church."  How  a  religious  society  could  be  turned  into  a  Church,he  does  not 
inform  us.    This  was  after  Coke  came  to  America. 

6* 


66 

get  himself  recognized  as  a  Bishop — No  less  a  fraud  than  altering  the  minutes  of 
the  Conference!  and  this,  too,  by  endeavouring  to  make  it  appear  to  the  world,  that 
they  had  been  recognized  as  Bishops  by  the  Conference  since  the  first  foundation  of 
"  the  Methodist  Church,"  in  1784  !  whereas  the  Conference  had  only  recognized 
them  as  Superintendents — the  office  to  which  Wesley  had  appointed  them — and 
this  alteration  of  their  title,  for  this  purpose  by  themselves,  took  place  in  1787! 

Lee,  in  his  "History,"  goes  on  to  remark: 

"At  the  next  Conference  they  asked  the  preachers  if  the  word  Bishop  might 
stand  in  the  minutes  ;  seeing  that  it  was  a  Scripture  name,  and  the  meaning  of 
the  worrf  Bishop  was  the  same  with  that  of  Superintendent." 

Observe  here,  the  reason  assigned  for  assuming  the  title  of  Bishop.  It  was 
not  that  Wesley  had  ordained  them  to  that  office.  Coke  knew  better  than  that! 
But  because  the  word  "  Bishop"  meant  "  Superintendent !"  So  it  also  means  an 
"  overseer,"  but  is  every  overseer  therefore  a  Bishop  ?  So  the  word  "  Presbyter" 
means  "  an  old  man  ;"  but  is  every  old  man  therefore  a  Presbyter?  So  the  word 
"Deacon"  means  "  a  servant ;"  but  is  every  servant  therefore  a  Deacon  ?  It  is 
evident  from  this  transaction,  that  Coke  and  Asbury  did  not  dare  to  assign  Wes- 
ley's "  appointment"  as  the  ground  for  their  assuming  the  title  of  the  chief  officer 
in  the  Church  of  God ;  otherwise  they  would  not  have  assigned  such  a  school- 
boy reason  for  their  unjustifiable  act. 

Lee,  in  his  "  History,"  then  goes  on  further  to  remark : 

"Some  of  the  preachers  opposed  the  alteration,  and  wished  to  retain  the  for- 
mer title,  [that  of  superintendent;]  but  a  majority  of  the  preachers  agreed  to  let 
the  word  Bishop  remain  ;  and,  in  the  annual  minutes  for  the  next  year,  the  first 
question  is  :  '  who  are  the  Bishops  of  our  Church  for  the  United  States  V  " 

Thus  was  consummated  one  of  the  most  startling  frauds  of  modern  times;  and 
the  whole  "  Methodist  Church"  has  ever  since,  been  led  to  believe,  that  Wesley 
ordained  Dr.  Coke  a  Bishop,  and  then  "  commissioned"  him  to  ordain  Asbury  a 
Bishop,  and  that  these  two  were  actually  recognized  and  called  Bishops  by  the 
Methodist  Conference  since  the  first  foundation  of  their  "Church,"  in  1784! 
And,  what  is  more,  this  fraud  is  actually  perpetrated  to  the  present  day;  for  in 
the  "  Book  of  Discipline,"  (chap.  1,  sec.  I,)  it  is  said  expressly:  "  Francis  Asbury 
was  solemnly  set  apart  for  the  said  Episcopal  office  by  prayer,  and  the  imposition 
of  hands  of  the  said  Thomas  Coke,  other  regularly  ordained  ministers  assisting 
in  the  sacred  ceremony.  At  which  time,  the  General  Conference,  held  in  Balti- 
more, did  unanimously  receive  the  said  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury  as 
their  Bishops,  being  fully  satisfied  of  the  validity  of  their  Episcopal  ordination!" 

Now  when  did  this  "  imposition  of  hands"  on  Mr.  Asbury  by  Dr.  Coke  take 
place  ■?  Mr.  Lee  informs  us,  in  his  "  History,"  (p.  94,)  that  it  took  place  at  the 
Conference,  which  began  in  Baltimore  on  December  27,  1784;  whereas  it  was 
not  until  1787,  that  the  minutes  were  altered;  and  it  was  not  until  the  "next 
Conference"  afterwards,  that  the  Superintendents  were  "  received"  as  Bishops  ! 
and  when  the  Conference  did  consent  to  "  receive  them  as  Bishops,"  it  was  not 
done  "  unanimously,"  but  was  the  act  of  only  a  "  majority"  of  the  preachers. 
And  thus  are  the  Methodists  imposed  upon  until  this  very  hour! 

It  is  enough  to  make  one  shudder,  when  contemplating  the  manner  in  which 
these  men  attempted  to  thrust  themselves  into  the  chief  office  of  the  Christian 
ministry.  The  recollection  of  it  appears  to  have  grievously  weighed  upon  Dr. 
Coke's  conscience,  when  he  afterwards  so  earnestly  wrote  to  Bishop  Seabury  to 
ordain  him  and  Asbury  Bishops!  and  to  Bishops  White  and  Seabury  to  ordain 
their  preachers  over  again  !  And  well  it  might  weigh  upon  his  conscience  !  The 
wonder  is,  it  did  not  drive  him  into  a  mad-house  !  Wesley  himself  tells  us  the 
effect  it  had  upon  him,  when  he  heard  of  Asbury  claiming  to  be  a  Bishop !  He 
tells  us  it  made  him  shudder — and  well  it  might.     He  thus  writes  to  Asbury : 

John    Wesley   to   Frattcis   Asburt. 

"London,  September  20,  1788. 

"There  is,  indeed,  a  wide  difference  between  the  relation  wherein  you  stand 
to  the  Americans,  and  the  relation  M'herein  I  stand  to  all  the  Methodists.    You 


67 

are  the  elder  brother  of  the  American  Methodists ;  I  am,  under  God,  the  father  of 
the  whole  family.  Therefore,!  naturally  care  for  you  all,  in  a  manner  no  other 
person  can  do.  Therefore,  I,  in  a  measure,  provide  for  you  all ;  for  the  supplies 
which  Dr.  Coke  provides  for  you,  he  could  not  provide,  were  it  not  for  me — 
were  it  not,  that  I  not  only  permit  him  to  collect,  but  support  him  in  so  doing. 

"  But,  in  one  point,  my  dear  brother,  I  am  a  little  afraid  both  the  Doctor  and 
you  difier  from  me.  I  study  to  be  little,  you  study  to  be  great ;  I  creep,  you  strut 
along;  I  found  a  school,  you  a  college.  Nay,  and  call  it  after  your  own  names! 
Oh,  beware  !  Do  not  seek  to  be  something !  Let  me  be  nothing,  and  Christ  be 
all  in  all. 

"  One  instance  of  this,  your  greatness,  has  given  me  great  concern.  How 
can  you,  how  dare  you  suffer  yourself  to  be  called  a  Bishop  ? 

"  I  shudder,  I  start  at  the  very  thought !  Men  may  call  me  a  knave,  or  a  fool,  a 
rascal,  a  scoundrel,  and  I  am  content;  but  they  shall  never,  by  my  consent,  call 
me  a  Bishop  !  For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to 
this  !  Let  the  Presbyterians  do  what  they  please,  but  let  the  Methodists  know 
their  calling  better. 

"  Thus,  my  dear  Franky,  I  have  told  you  all  that  is  in  my  heart ;  and  let  this, 
when  I  am  no  more  seen,  bear  witness  how  sincerely 

"  I  am  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

John  Wesley."* 

This  letter  is  a  remarkable  document.  Four  years  had  nearly  elapsed  since 
his  "appointment"  of  Dr.  Coke.  In  the  mean  time  Wesley  had  had  time  for 
reflection.  He  had  time  for  a  further  and  more  deliberate  investigation  of  the 
authority  of  Presbyters  to  ordain  ;  and  however  he  might,  for  a  season,  have  been 
blinded  by  the  sophistical  book  of  Sir  Peter  King,  so  as  to  suppose  Presbyters 
and  Bishops  were  the  same  order,  yet  now  he  gives  his  more  mature  judgment, 
that  they  were  not — for  that  is  the  meaning  of  the  last  clause  in  his  letter,  where 
he  speaks  of  the  Presbyterians.  It  is  well  known  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Pres- 
byterians is,  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are  the  same  order;  and  many  of  them, 
even  to  this  day,  do  not  scruple  to  call  themselves  Bishops.  In  reference  to  this 
fact  it  is,  that  "Wesley  says  in  the  above  letter,  "  Let  the  Presbyterians  do  as  they 
please,  but  let  the  Methodists  know  their  calling  better."  That  is,  let  the  Presbyterians, 
if  they  please,  call  themselves  Bishops,  but  let  not  the  Methodists  follow  their 
example — let  them  know  their  calling  better  than  to  call  themselves  Bishops, 
when  they  are  not. 

Now,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  question  before  us  is  :  Did  Wesley,  when 
he  "  appointed"  Coke  and  Asbury  "Superintendents"  of  the  Methodist  Society, 
ordain  them  Bishops  T 

It  is  certain  he  did  not.  This  letter  to  Asbury,  in  the  very  plainest  manner 
possible — words  cannot  be  plainer — declares  that  Asbury  was  no  Bishop;  and 
yet  Coke  did  for  Asbury  precisely  what  Wesley  did  for  Coke — he  laid  his 
hands  upon  him,  and  prayed  over  him  :  and  if,  in  Wesley's  judgment,  this  impo- 
sition of  hands  and  prayer  by  a  Presbyter  did  not  constitute  Asbury  a  Bishop, 
neither  could  they,  in  Wesley's  judgment,  have  constituted  Dr.  Coke  a  Bishop;  for 
Coke's  authority  to  ordain  was  the  same  as  Wesley's,  (which  was  no  authority 
at  all,)  both  of  them  being  Presbyters  of  the  Church  of  England ;  and,  therefore  ,it  is 
proved  clearly  and  undeniably,  that  in  appointing  Coke  and  Asbury  to  be  "  Super- 
intendents" of  the  Methodist  Society,  Wesley  did  not  ordain  them  Bishops. 

Notwithstanding  their  high-handed  assumption  of  Xheiltlc  of  Bishop,  still  these 
men  were  uneasy.  The  fact  was  still  staring  them  in  the  face,  (and  the  woi'ld 
knew  it,)  that  Wesley  had  only  "  appointed"  them  to  be  Superintendents  of  the 
Methodist  Society  under  him  ;-{-  and,  however  they  might  claim  to  be  Bishops 

*  From  Moore's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  ii.  page  285. 

f  In  his  letter  "appointing"  Dr.  Coke  a  Superintendent,  Wesley  says,  "Whereas 
many  of  the  people  in  the  Southern  Provinces  of  North  America,  who  desire  to 
continue  under  my  care,"  &c.  In  his  letter  to  Asbury,  he  says  :  "The  supplies 
•which  Dr.  Coke  provides  for  you,  he  could  wot  collect,  were  it  not  for  me were 


68 

— and,  however  they  might  alter  the  name  in  the  minutes — still  Bishops  of  the 
Church  of  God  they  were  not!  Something,  then,  must  be  done  to  get  around 
this  matter,  and  convince  the  people,  1.  That  Wesley  was  a  Bishop  ;  2.  That 
Wesley  ordained  Coke  a  Bishop  ;  and,  3.  That  Coke  ordained  Asbury  a  Bishop  ! 
One  would  suppose,  when  Asbury  had  Wesley's  letter,  (dated  September  20lh, 
1788,)  in  his  pocket,  declaring  that  he  was  no  Bishop,  and  that  Asbury  was  no 
Bishop,  that  this  would  not  be  a  very  easy  matter  to  accomplish.  But  these  men 
did  not  stick  at  trifles  ;  they  had  already  fabricated  a  new  set  of  minutes  for  their 
"Church"  to  get  the  title  of  Bishops,  and  they  were  determined  to  go  all  lengths 
sooner  than  fail  in  their  project  to  be  accounted  real  Bishops.  The  Bishops  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  had  now  for  some  time  been 
consecrated ;  Coke  and  Asbury  knew  that  their  commission  was  authentic  ;  that 
they  had  been  consecrated  in  England  and  Scotland  by  lauful  Bishops  ;  and  that 
the  Church  had  received  them  as  Bishops,  in  a  regular  succession  from  the 
Apostles.  Coke  and  Asbury  knew  all  this;  and  alongside  of  these  men,  as 
Methodist  "Superintendents"  they  felt  their  littleness,  although  they  had  assumed 
the  name  of  what  they  so  much  coveted  !  They  knew  that  they  had  the  name  of 
a  Bishop,  and  that  was  all  !  They  had  no  succession  to  point  to  !  Let  us  see, 
then,  how  they  proceeded  to  get  the  reality.  At  one  of  their  Conferences,  held 
in  the  year  1789,  Mr.  Lee,  in  his  "  History,"  informs  us  (p.  142,)  that 

"  The  Bishops  (that  is,  Coke  and  Asbury)  introduced  a  question  in  the  annual 
minutes,  which  was  as  follows  : 

"  Q.  Who  are  the  persons  that  exercise  the  Episcopal  office  in  the  Methodist  Church  in 
Europe  and  America  f 

"  A.  John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury,  by  regular  order  and 

SUCCESSION  ! ! 

"  The  next  question  was  asked  differently  from  what  it  ever  had  been  in  any  of 
the  former  minutes,  which  stands  thus; 

"  Q.  Who  have  been  elected  by  the  unanimous  suffrages  of  the  General  Con- 
ference to  superintend  the  Methodist  Connexion  in  America? 

"A.  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury." 

The  drift  of  these  questions  and  answers  can  be  seen  at  once.  Their  object  is 
to  make  it  appear,  (1.)  That  it  was  the  Conference  and  not  Wesle)%  which 
"appointed"'  them  Superintendents !  and  (2.)  To  make  it  appear,  that  Wesley  was 
a  13ishop,  and  ordained  them  Bishops,  and  that  thus  they  have  a  regular  succes- 
sion from  a  lawful  Bishop !  Now,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  these  questions 
were  introduced  by  Coke  and  Asbury  themselves  !  They  saw  the  full  drift  of 
them,  although  the  Conference  might  not  have  seen  it!  Calmly  and  without 
prejudice  review  this  proceeding;  and  then,  taking  it  in  connection  with  the  fact, 
that  they  fabricated  a  new  set  of  minutes  to  get  the  name  of  a  Bishop,  and  with 
the  fact  that  Asbury  had  in  his  possession  Wesley's  letter  declaring  that  he  was 
no  Bishop,  and  thdiX  Asbury  was  no  Bishop — I  say,  calmly  and  without  prejudice 
review  this  proceeding,  in  connection  with  these  fads,  and  then  say,  whether 
modern  or  ancient  times  afford  a  more  daring  or  unhallowed  scheme,  than  this 
presents,  of  men  undertaking  to  usurp  the  office  and  authority  of  a  Christian 
Bishop  ! 

These  facts,  also,  prove  that  Coke  and  Asbury  knew  that  Wesley  did  not  ordain 
them  Bishops,  when  he  "  appointed"  them  Superintendents  of  the  Methodist 

it  not  that  I  not  only  pfnni^  him  to  collect,  but  support  him  in  so  doing."  The 
following  question  and  answer  were  adopted  at  the  Conference  in  1784.  "  Q.  2. 
What  can  be  done  in  order  to  the  future  union  of  the  Methodists'?  A.  During 
the  life  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his  sons  in  the 
Gospel,  ready,  in  matters  belonging  to  Church  Government,  to  obet  his  com- 
mands," &c.  (Lee's  History,  p.  95.)  Mr.  Lee  afterwards  observes:  "This 
engagement  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley's  commands,  in  matters  belonging  to  Church 
Gwernment,  was  afterwards  the  cause  of  some  uneasiness."  No  wonder.  Wes- 
ley's letter  to  Asbury  when  he  set  up  for  a  Bishop,  was  well  calculated  to  make 
him  uneasy 


69 

Society  under  him.  But,  if  there  be  any  doubts  remaining  on  this  point,  they  will 
be  removed  by  the  perusal  of  Dr.  Coke's  letters  to  Bishops  White*  and  Seaburyf 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

1.  It  will  be  observed,  in  both  of  these  letters,  that  Dr.  Coke  does  not,  for  a 
moment,  claim  to  be  a  Bishop. 

2.  His  letter  to  Bishop  White  shows,  that  he  exceeded  the  authority  given  him 
by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  that  Mr.  Wesley  disapproved  of  his  proceedings. 

3.  In  his  letter  to  Bishop  Seabury,  he  asks  Bishop  Seabury  to  ordain  him  "a 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Society  !"  Thereby  acknowledging  that  Wesley,  when 
he  "  appointed"  him  a  Superintendent,  did  not  ordain  him  a  Bishop,  of  that  society! 

4.  In  his  letter  to  Bishop  Seabury,  he  asks  Bishop  Seabury  to  ordain  Mr.  As- 
bury  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Society;  thereby  acknowledging  that  his  ordina- 
tion of  Asbury  to  be  a  Bishop  was  only  a  mock  ordination  ! 

5.  In  his  letter  to  Bishop  Seabury,  asking  for  the  admission  of  the  Methodist 
preachers  into  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Dr.  Coke  says,  that  he  "knows 
that  they  must  submit  to  arc-ordination."  Of  course,  the  ordination  they  received 
from  him  was  good  for  nothing,  otherwise  there  would  have  been  no  necessity 
for  their  being  ordained  over  again. 

6.  These  letters  prove,  beyond  question,  that  Coke  knew  and  believed,  that 
Bishops  alone  possessed  authority  to  ordain  ;  that  no  such  authority  was  possessed 
by  Presbyters  (otherwise  his  own  ordinations  would  have  been  valid,  for  he  was  a 
Presbyter;)  and,  consequently,  that  he  knew  and  believed  that  Presbyters  and 
Bishops  were  not  the  same  order. 

7.  These  letters,  too,  show  conclusively,  what  was  Dr.  Coke's  opinion  of  Wes- 
ley's ordinations  (as  they  are  called) — that  is,  that  they  possessed  no  validity  what- 
ever; and,  therefore,  that  when  Wesley  "  appointed"  him  a  Superintendent  of 
the  Methodist  Society,  he  did  not  "ordain"  him  a  Bishop  of  the  Church  of  God. 

c. 

The  following  paragraph  is  the  close  of  a  Letter  addressed  to  me  by  Dr. 
Durbin  in  the  public  prints,  and  which,  for  good  reasons,  I  determined  not  to 
notice.  The  matter  referred  to  is  not  of  much  consequence,  and  I  would 
overlook  it  entirely,  did  I  not  know  that  some  persons  have  regarded  his 
statement  as  true  ;  and  have  naturally  drawn  conclusions  against  those  prin- 
ciples of  the  Church  with  which  Dr.  Pusey's  name  is  so  nobly  associated. 

"It  was  deemed  desirable  by  my  brethren,  that  the  capital  questions  in  dis- 
pute should  be  distinctly  stated,  as  the  general  judgment  of  the  Church  in  Eng- 
land and  America  is,  that  Puseyism  is  Romanism  in  disguise.  The  proceedings 
of  the  existing  Church  authorities  in  England  which  resulted  in  the  suspension  of 
Dr.  Pusey  from  the  ministry,  and  the  resignation  of  Mr.  Newman,  are  sufficient 
evidence  of  their  views." 

"  Evidence"  !  There  is  no  truth  in  the  statement.  No  Church  authorities 
have  acted  in  the  premises.  Dr.  Pusey  has  not  been  suspended  from  the 
ministry  ;  and  if  it  be  meant  that  Mr.  Newman  has  resigned  his  ministry,  (in 
which  case  only  it  would  be  evidence  of  his  doctrinal  unsoundness,)  that  also 
is  untrue.  A  person  acquainted  only  with  the  first  principles  of  Church 
polity,  never  could  have  been  guilty  of  such  an  assertion,  as  Dr.  Durbin  has 
here  hazarded  ;  and  that  too,  in  respect  of  a  case  which  was  correctly  reported 

*  Published  in  Bishop  White's  Memoirs. 

f  The  letter  to  Bishop  Seabury  is  similar.  The  autograph  is  in  the  possession 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Seabury  of  New  York, 


70 

even  in  the  newspapers.  He  needs  to  be  informed  that  a  clergyman  can  be 
suspended  from  his  ministry  only  by  his  diocesan.  But  the  Bishop  of  Oxford 
has  never  interfered  with  Dr.  Pusey,  even  so  much  as  to  give  him  a  rebuke. 
The  latter  was  suspended  only  from  the  privilege  of  preaching  within  the  pre- 
cincts of  the  University,  for  two  years  ,•  and  that  by  the  Vice  Chancellor,  acting 
in  his  capacity  of  supreme  civil  magistrate  of  the  city  and  University  of  Oxford, 
and  without  paying  any  regard  to  the  provision  of  the  statute  under  which  he 
acted,  that  the  '  offence  should  be  examined  in  open  court.'  Dr.  Pusey  was 
punished  without  having  any  distinct  charge  brought  against  him.  No  one 
in  authority  has  dared  to  say,  that  his  famous  sermon  contained  one  word  con- 
travening any  doctrinal  statement  of  the  Church  of  England.  Neither  the 
Vice  Chancellor,  nor  his  lieutenant.  Professor  Garbett,  have  ventured  so  far 
as  this.  The  title  of  the  statute  under  which  Dr.  Pusey  suffered  (it  is  wrong 
to  say  "  punished,"  for  a  man  cannot  be  punished,  properly  speaking,  unless 
he  is  guilty  of  an  offence,)  is  "  De  offensionis  et  disseniionis  materia  in  con- 
cionibus  evitanda;''^  i.  e.  "  about  avoiding  matters  of  offence  and  dispute  in 
sermons."  Such  matters,  the  statute  states,  are  those  which  are  "  contrary  to, 
or  at  variance  with,  the  publicly  received  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Church 
of  England  ;"  and  the  statute  closes  with  these  words,  "e/  praedictorum  crimi- 
num  suspectus  pads  reus  habeatur,^^  i.  e.  "  and  one  charged  with  the  afore- 
said offences  may  be  accused  as  a  disturber  of  the  peace." 

Such  was  the  pretended  offence.  At  most,  it  was  a  civil  offence,  and  ille- 
gally punished  by  a  ai)z7  magistrate,  without  giving  the  accused  a  trial,  or  a 
hearing.  In  a  published  note,  the  Vice  Chancellor  says,  "  Dr.  Pusey  has 
my  full  authority  for  saying,  that  he  has  had  no  hearing."  Dr.  Pusey  is 
still  a  priest  in  the  Church  of  England,  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  and 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew  ;  and  is  free  to  preach  any  where  he  may  be 
invited,  beyond  the  Vice  Chancellor's  jurisdiction.  It  may  be  as  well  to 
state  here  in  addition,  that  that  officer,  and  those  who  have  acted  with  him, 
have  lately  received  a  rebuke  from  the  Convocation  which  has  covered  them 
with  shame. 

Mr.  Newman's  resignation  was  simply  of  the  vicarage  of  St.  Mary's.  He 
wished  to  make  it  two  years  before,  in  order  to  relieve  his  persecutors  from 
the  sin  of  indulging  their  personal  animosity  against  him  ;  but  he  was  dis- 
suaded from  it  by  his  Bishop.  His  meek  forbearance,  however,  did  them  no 
good  ;  and  he  at  last,  voluntarily,  gave  up  the  living  of  St.  Mary's,  together 
with  the  chapel  annexed,  which  he  had  founded  himself. 


THE    END. 


ERRATA. 

Page  28,  top  line,  for  means  read  mean. 

Page  30,  3d  line  from  the  bottom,  fox  justifiable  read  justified. 

Page  33,  in  the  quotation  near  the  bottom,  for  "  The  Homily  says  they 
taught  the  doctrine  of  Sacramental  justification  ;"  read,  "  The  Homily  says 
they  taught  the  doctrine  of  'justification  by  faith  alone  ;'  you  say  they  taught 
the  docrine  of  '  Sacramental  justification.'  "     i 

Page  34,  in  the  9th  line  from  the  bottom,  erase  the  words   "  their  minds 


are"- 


Page  49,  1st  line  in  2d  quotation,  for  has  read  hast. 

Page  52,  6th  line  from  the  top,  for  redoubiebk  read  redoubtable. 


%^l 


£T    ^ 


^^5^' 
m^,^^ 


^y^^^s^j  i<. 


..'^■y;^>:m 


>^" 


r.^^ 


~v"-K. 


Vl)^ 


.^ 


l\ 


V     \> 


^^  V   -'. 


t^^xX 


^y  v^'- 


